Girls and STEM Education:

A Literature Review
Jennifer Milam
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia
jennifer.milam@cc.gatech.edu
ABSTRACT

The percentages of women receiving BS degrees in % BS Degrees Awarded

Engineering and Computer Sciences has been steadily to Women by Year and Major
decreasing for almost two decades. Much research has
been published, and continues to be pursued, to understand Year CS Eng Math
the contributing factors. While no single theory has been 1980 30% 31% 34%
agreed upon, several recurring themes have been identified. 1985 37%
One theme --that of girls self-selecting away from 1990 30%
Engineering and Computer Sciences-- is something that can 1995 29% 17% 72%
and should be addressed sooner than later, to ensure both 2001 28% 20% 48%
equal access to technological fields of study for women, 2005 22% 20% 45%
and an adequate supply of new workers for the field. 2010 18% 18% 43%

Author Keywords Table 1. BS Awarded to Women, by Year.
STEM education for girls, Women in computer science, SOURCE: NCES, Digest of Education
Learning, Education. Statistics, various years (based on IPEDS/
HEGIS Completion survey).
ACM Classification Keywords
. Over the last three decades, the number of women in
science and engineering fields has plummeted
INTRODUCTION (see Table 1). No one seems to have a definitive answer
My sophomore year of college, I took an intermediate why, but some researchers have suggested that there is a
programming course at a top-10 ranked computer science pipeline issue, and emerging evidence shows that self-
university and, of over 200 students, I was one of about 7 selection of girls away from STEM fields starts at an early
girls in the class (I know because one of the guys sitting age [3].
next to me actually counted). My upper level math classes,
on the other hand, were almost half women. What was the My goal is to explore why this self-selection occurs, find
difference? Women start thinning in upper level Science, ways to change it, and use that information to increase the
Technology, and Engineering classes, but why? pool of young girls who are interested (maybe even excited)
about pursuing STEM fields in high school and college. In
this paper I will explore current literature on learning and
gender, psychology and popular culture for pre-teen girls.
I will also explore current thinking on women in STEM in
order to situate my forthcoming research on creative arts as
a bridge to tech for girls within the current framework of
scholarship. It is my belief that employing a culturally
acceptable mode of expression for girls, in this case
creative arts, will help to change the way young girls
perceive STEM fields and how they envision their own
prospects as future STEM practitioners.

LEARNING
Before tackling something as complex as girls in STEM
Copyright 2012 Ga Tech. fields, one first has to understand how girls learn. It is also

1
helpful to know whether and how socioeconomic and
cultural factors play a role in learning, skill acquisition and
future career goals.
While I was able to locate several resources on education
and learning for middle school children, I was surprised by
the difficulty of finding broad peer-reviewed studies
focused on American middle school girls, and I plan to seek
more of this literature more as my research progresses.
What I did find was some interesting information about
learning in general and technical learning specifically.
Learning, Gender and other factors
One potential factor in the loss of women in STEM
involves social and cultural influences. From an early age
females may be influenced by expectations and stereotypes
about gender roles and appropriate behaviors and interests
for girls. Girls may be socialized to believe that science and
technology are more appropriate fields for boys [2]. Girls
may be treated differently or perceive different expectations
for themselves based on their sex.
People often form opinions and stereotypes about others
before even meeting them. Often these inner beliefs can
color the way they interact with those they have
stereotyped. Lets be scientific and call it the confirmation
bias. It has been shown time and again that people who
belong to these stereotyped and disadvantaged populations
are aware of these biases, and often respond to them in
ways that are detrimental to their performance, most
notably on standardized tests [28]. It probably bears
mentioning that standardized tests are one precursor to
higher education opportunities, including recruitment,
admittance and funding.
Worse, many individuals from disadvantaged populations
may internalize these negative stereotypes from a very early
age and start to believe them themselves [28]. Feelings of
self-doubt and lack of self-efficacy can develop, creating a
self-limiting mindset. Studies have shown that the single
greatest factor predicting success is not intelligence, but
self-efficacy [30]. Individuals who believe they are capable
are willing to work harder, and hard work is the stairway to
success. Of course, this implies the opposite is true: if
individuals do not believe they are capable, they are less
inclined to persevere, and thus, less likely to succeed.
Another issue to consider is early exposure to technology.
Some research supports the theory that lack of early
exposure to technology for girls is contributing to the
gender gap in STEM fields [17].
Math
According to one source, more than 90% of academic math
positions and 80% of non-academic math positions are
filled by men [24]. Is this because men are innately better at
math? Studies have shown that women perform on par with
men in certain mathematical tasks [1], and that cultural
factors can weigh heavily on performance. In countries
such as Russia and China, where mathematical study and
practice is encouraged for girls as well boys, girls perform
significantly better on measures of mathematical ability
than those in countries where women are less encouraged
(or even discouraged) from pursuing mathematical sciences
[21]. In countries where math is less encouraged, there has
been supporting evidence that females are more prone to
harbor negative math stereotypes and perceptions [20,21],
and to experience more math anxiety than males [6].
Perhaps surprisingly, then, studies have shown that girls
actually outperform boys on structured mathematical
learning tasks, that is, applying procedures taught in class
[12,16]. However, when presented with applied problems
requiring creative extension past what has been covered in
class, girls begin to fall behind [10,11]. It has been posited
that this performance loss is a result of females deference to
authority, in other words, they are less likely to branch out
from the problem-solving methods that were provided by
the teacher [1]. In order to combat this effect, girls must be
given the freedom to think creatively (mindful learning).
Then performance is on par with that of their male
counterparts [1].
In a test of Massachusetts 6th graders, researchers found
that the use of an instructional technique called mindful
learning brings female performance up to the same level as
males, presumably because they are no longer hindered by
their deference to authority. In mindful learning teachers
present material conditionally (one way to solve this
problem is) rather than absolutely (the way to solve this
problem is). This gives girls implicit permission to reach
past the classroom instruction and explore their own
creative solutions [1]. Thus, mindful learning [is] learning
in a way that avoids forming mind-sets that are limiting or
rigid [14].
Regardless of early indicators of math performance, US
women are currently receiving almost half of all BS degrees
in Mathematics (actually, 43%) [19]. The story is not the
same for Engineering and Computer Science, however.
Computer Science and Engineering
Currently, only 18% of BS degrees in Engineering and in
Computer Sciences are being awarded to women [19]. In
1980, 37% of BS degrees in Computer Science and 31% in
Engineering were awarded to women. By 2010, that
number had shrunk below 18% for both [19]. Clearly, there
is something wrong.
It is imperative that women are not excluded from STEM,
especially from computer sciences, in part because
computers are becoming an integral part of all facets of our
society. In fact, DiSessa identifies a new kind of literacy,
computer literacy. Literacy is infrastructural and
absolutely essential to education Computers can be the
technical foundation of a new and dramatically enhanced
literacy a computational literacy [8]. He claims that
computer literacy will provide a new framework for
learning in the same way that verbal literacy does now. By
2
understanding the language of computers, learners will be
enabled to discover and absorb ever more knowledge, just
as the ability to read words helps one gain new information
through books and news.
According to DiSessa, there are three pillars of literacy:
material, mental and social. Material intelligence
supplements mental intelligence by leveraging tools (such
as computers). One famous example of material
intelligence is calculus. Calculus is a tool that supplements
mental intelligence. Sir Isaac Newton invented
calculus to assist with understanding mechanics new
material intelligence emerged out of the specific needs of
an investigation [8]. Perhaps the most important lesson to
take away from this are that education benefits from
curiosity, resourcefulness and discovery, which are also the
basic requisites of science. We need to encourage these
behaviors in learning environments for girls.
An important indicator for future scholarship in STEM
fields is early exposure to CS and technology [17]. This
points to the need to ensure girls are provided early
opportunities and access to technology-rich environments
so that they can acclimate, experiment and explore.
In addition to encouraging computer literacy behaviors and
exposing girls to technology early in their education, we
also need to provide social support, mentors and role
models for girls in engineering and computer science in
order to increase future participation and development
[17, 25]. By developing computer literacy for girls and
fostering the social aspects of STEM learning, females will
be able to fully participate in a world permeated with
science and technology.
PSYCHOLOGY AND POPULAR CULTURE FOR
PRE-TEEN GIRLS
In addition to understanding how girls learn, the success of
any program to increase female participation in STEM
requires an understanding of the social and psychological
factors that influence girls. Social marketing draws from
commercial market research, yet seeks to develop methods
to bring about behavior change in order to promote
positive youth development [26]. We believe this type of
research could be leveraged to improve the acceptance of a
STEM engagement plan.
A strong indicator of learning success is self-efficacy [30].
Therefore, it is paramount to instill in girls a faith in their
own ability. Research has found that self-efficacy is
affected by mastery experience, vicarious experience,
social persuasions, and physiological or affective states
teaching structures, course placement, and self-regulated
learning [27]. In particular, the presence of mentors, role
models and social support for learning is associated with
positive learning outcomes for girls [2,17,25]. In fact, role
models may be even more important for girls than for
boys [25]. It stands to reason that efforts to increase female
participation in STEM should leverage these types of
activities and structures to optimize girls sense of self-
efficacy from an early age.
FEMALES IN STEM
Currently, the large majority of STEM occupations, both
academic and non-academic are filled by men [2].
Including women in STEM fields is important for many
reasons. For one, bringing diversity to science helps
combat groupthink that can result from too much
homogeneity. Women may problem solve differently than
men, leading to new and alternate solutions. In addition,
women with STEM degrees are twice as likely as men with
STEM degrees to enter jobs in education and health
fields [2]. Further, STEM fields tend to pay more than non-
STEM fields, so women are not only losing intellectual
opportunities, but economic opportunities as well. In fact,
women working in STEM fields earn 33% more than
women in non-STEM fields [2]. And we should not forget
the historical contributions of women to math and science,
from Madame Curie to Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper, to
name but a few.
Much research, some of it industry sponsored, has explored
the shrinking numbers of women in science and tech. Some
factors that have been identified by this research include
work-place culture, lack of work-life balance, lack of role
models and networks, and the failure of the high-tech sector
to recruit and train women [9,22]. The main factor
identified as the reason women avoid or leave IT industries
is inhospitable company culture. Problems included gender
stereotypes regarding skills and abilities based on
gender [22]. In addition, the popular view of these fields
does not necessarily accurately reflect the opportunities and
work involved in these fields, and thus may be creative
negative biases in parents and kids [22].
CONCLUSION
In order to increase the participation of women in STEM
fields it is paramount that we, as a society, ensure a healthy
supply of women preparing for and pursuing STEM fields
in high school and college. There are currently several
high-profile products aimed at priming children for STEM
careers. The most notable include Alice and Scratch for
programming skills, and Legos Mindstorms for
mechanical/engineering skills. However, without parental
or school support, young girls may lack the motivation or
skills to engage meaningfully with these products. In
addition, none of these are specifically tailored or marketed
to girls, and may implicitly send a message of tolerance
rather than encouragement.
Developing projects and toolkits that are tailored
specifically to girls, and which fit within girls current
social framework, may be one way to engage and excite
girls interest in STEM fields in addition to more accurately
conveying the possibly depth and diversity of STEM
applications.
3
 When women are not proportionally represented in
STEM fields, both science and society suffer. By
understanding the issues underlying the low and decreasing
numbers of women entering STEM areas of study, schools
can begin to modify or develop programs to address these
concerns. Current evidence suggests that early educational
experiences are instrumental as a catalyst for future
involvement in science and technology. We need to make
sure we provide every girl the opportunity for achievement
in STEM.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of
Dr. Ellen Do and Dr. Jim Budd for inspiring this path of
inquiry.
REFERENCES
1. Anglin, L.P., Pirson, M., Langer, E. Mindful Learning:
A Moderator of Gender Differences in Mathematics
Performance. J Adult Dev (2008) 15:132139.
2. Beede,D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick,G.,
Khan, B. and Doms,M. Women in STEM: A Gender
Gap to Innovation, Executive Summary. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics
Administration (2011).
3. Blickenstaff, J. C. Women and science careers: leaky
pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education (2005):
17, 4, 369386.
4. Burke, Q. and Kafai, Y.B. Programming &
Storytelling: Opportunities for Learning About Coding
& Composition. (ACM IDC 10). ACM, New York,
NY, USA (2010).
5. Catsambis, S. The Path to Math: Gender and Racial-
Ethnic Differences in Mathematics Participation from
Middle School to High School. Sociology of Education
(1994): 67, 199-215. URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112791
6. Chipman, S., Krantz, D., & Silver, R. Mathematics
anxiety and science careers among able college women.
Psychological Science, (1992): 3(5), 292295.
7. Condron, D. Social Class, School and Non-School
Environments, and Black/White Inequalities in
Children's Learning. American Sociological Review,
(2009): 74, 5, 683-708.
8. DiSessa, A.A. Changing Minds: Computers, Learning,
and Literacy. MIT Press (2001).
9. Foust-Cummings, H., Sabattini, L., Carter, N. Women
in Technology: Maximizing Talent, Minimizing
Barriers. Catalyst (2008).
10. Gallagher, A. M., & De Lisi, R. Gender differences in
scholastic aptitude test-Mathematics problem solving
among high-ability students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, (1994): 86(2), 204211.
11. Gallagher, A. M., De Lisi, R., Holst, P. C.,
McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Morely, M., & Cahalan,
C. Gender differences in advanced mathematical
problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, (2000): 75, 165190.
12. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. Gender
differences in mathematics performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, (1990): 107, 139155.
13. Kelleher, C. & Pausch, R. Using storytelling to
motivate programming. Communications of the ACM,
50, 7, 59-64.
14. Langer, E. The power of mindful learning. Perseus
Publishing, Cambridge, MA (1997).
15. Marcu, G., Kaufman, S.J., Lee, J.K., Black, R.W.,
Dourish, P., Hayes, G.R., Richardson, D.J. Design and
Evaluation of a Computer Science and Engineering
Course for Middle School Girls. ACM SIGCSE10.
(2010): 234-238.
16. Mendes-Barnett, S., & Ercikan, K. Examining sources
of gender DIF in mathematics assessment using a
confirmatory multidimensional model approach.
Applied Measurement in Education, (2006): 19(4), 289
304.
17. Miller, L.M., Schweingruber, H. and Brandenburg, C.L.
Middle School Students Technology Practices and
Preferences: Re-Examining Gender Differences. Jl. of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia (2001):10,2,
125-140.
18. Misa, Thomas J. Gender Codes : Women and Men in
the Computing Professions. Wiley-IEEE Press, Wiley-
IEEE Press (2010).
19. National Center for Educational Statistics. Degrees
awarded in [various years]. Reported in Chronicle of
Higher Education, (various years, 1980-2010).
20. Nosek, B., Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A. Math = male,
me = female, therefore math not equal me. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, (2002): 83(1), 44
59.
21. Noseka,B.A., Smytha, F.L., Srirama, N., et al. National
differences in genderscience stereotypes predict
national sex differences in science and math
achievement. PNAS (2009), 106, 26 10593-10597.
22. Ramsey, N. and McCorduck , P. Where are the Women
in Information Technology? Report of Literature Search
and Interviews. Prepared by the Anita Borg Institute for
Women and Technology (www.anitaborg.org) for the
National Center for Women & Information Technology,
University of Colorado, Boulder, (2005).
23. Reeder, K. Using Storyboarding Techniques to Identify
Design Opportunities. The Technology Teacher, the
Voice of Technology Education. 64 (7), (2005): 9-11.
24. Ripley, A. Who says a woman cant be Einstein? Time,
(2005): 165, 5060.
4
25. Schuette, C.T., Ponton, M.K., and Charlton, M.L.
Middle School Childrens Career Aspirations:
Relationship to Adult Occupations and Gender. The
Career Development Quarterly, (2012): 60, 36-46.
26. Thornley, L. and Marsh, K. What Works in Social
Marketing to Young People? Systematic Review for the
Health Research Council of New Zealand and the
Ministry of Youth Development. Final Report. (2010).
27. Usher, E.L. Sources of Middle School Students Self-
Efficacy in Mathematics: A Qualitative Investigation.
Am Educ Res J (2009): 46, 1, 275-314. doi:
10.3102/0002831208324517
28. Walton, G.M., Spencer, S.J., Erman, S. Affirmative
Meritocracy. Social Issues and Policy Review (2012)
(currently in press).
29. Webb, H.C. and Rosson, M.B. Exploring Careers While
Learning Alice 3D: A Summer Camp for Middle School
Girls. (ACM SIGCSE 11). ACM, New York, NY,
USA (2011): 377-382.
30. Ylmaza, C. The relationship between language learning
strategies, gender, proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs:
a study of ELT learners in Turkey. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences 2, (2010): 682-687.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.084