Factors Influencing Young Women’s Intention to Undertake Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Review of Literature
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/h41f2r10Keywords:
Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Gender, Equality, Empowerment, MalaysiaAbstract
Globally, women are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Although women’s participation in higher education is increasing, they are still significantly underrepresented in STEM fields. The under-representation of women in STEM translates into the loss of a critical mass of talent, thoughts and ideas, which hinders countries from reaching their maximum developmental potential. It is important to understand the forces at play, which drive women's choice of STEM education. This could be due to a variety of reasons, including personal (I.e. self-concept, self-efficacy, personal preferences, self-stereotyping and intrinsic motivation) as well as the external factors (i.e. role models, family, teacher’s influence as well as low recruitment of women in STEM fields). This paper systematically reviews the literature on young women’s intention to undertake STEM education in Malaysian context. The paper also highlights those personal and external factors which have not been studied extensively in Malaysian context. This paper can give readers a novel insight about factors influencing women’s participation in STEM education in Malaysia.
Downloads
References
1. AASSA (2014). Women in science and technology in Asia, The Association of Academies and Societies of Sciences in Asia (AASSA)c/o The Korean Academy of Science and Technology (KAST), ISBN 979- 11-86795-00-2 93040
2. Abdullah, N. H., Shamsuddin, A., Wahab, E., Hamid, N. A. A., & Azizan, A. Z. (2018, November). Women Participation In Engineering Professions: Future Intentions and Directions. In 2018 IEEE 10th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED) (pp. 220-223). IEEE.
3. Abu-Lail, N. I., Phang, F. A., Kranov, A. A., Mohd-Yusof, K., Olsen, R. G., Letricewilliams, R., & Abidin,
A. Z. (2012). Persistent gender inequity in US undergraduate engineering: Looking to Jordan and Malaysia for factors to their success in achieving gender parity. In American Society for Engineering Education. American Society for Engineering Education.
4. Akinsowon, O. A., & Osisanwo, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing interest in sciences, technology and mathematics (STEM) for the Nigerian female folk. International Journal of Information Science, 4(1), 8-12.
5. Allen, M. (2003). Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research Say? A Summary of the Findings.
6. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.
7. Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self‐efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.
8. Cavallo, A. M., Potter, W. H., & Rozman, M. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104(6), 288-300.
9. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 275-279.
10. Chang, Y., & Yuan, C. (2008). Gender differences in science achievement, science selfconcept, and science values. Proceedings of the IRC, Chinese Taipei.
11. Cohen, C. C. D., & Deterding, N. (2009). Widening the net: National estimates of gender disparities in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 211-226.
12. Corcoran, M. E., & Courant, P. N. (1987). Sex-role socialization and occupational segregation: an exploratory investigation. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 9(3), 330-346.
13. DeSantis, A. M., & Quimby, J. L. (2004). Self-efficacy as a mediator between contextual variables and career choice. In Poster session presented at the 113th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
14. Dimitriadi, A. (2013). Young women in science and technology: the importance of choice. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 5.
15. Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., & Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 265-269.
16. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of women quarterly, 18(4), 585-609.
17. Eccles, J. S., & Wang, M. T. (2016). What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science?. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(2), 100-106.
18. Farenga, S. J., & Joyce, B. A. (1999). Intentions of young students to enroll in science courses in the future: An examination of gender differences. Science Education, 83(1), 55-75.
19. Fehrs, M. and Czujko, R. (1992). Women in physics: Reversing the exclusion, Phys. Today 45, No. 8, 33
20. Flowers, L. O., Raynor Jr, J. E., & White, E. N. (2013). Investigation of academic self-concept of undergraduates in STEM courses. Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, 5(1).
21. Gadassi, R., & Gati, I. (2009). The effect of gender stereotypes on explicit and implicit career preferences. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(6), 902-922.
22. Garcia, M., Greenley, R., Martin-Onraët, V., & Pollack, L. (2015). Women’s workforce participation in Indonesia and Malaysia. Master project.
23. Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of vocational behavior, 65(1), 134-156.
24. Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(10), 1159-1176.
25. Goy, S. C., Wong, Y. L., Low, W. Y., Noor, S. N. M., Fazli-Khalaf, Z., Onyeneho, N., ... & GinikaUzoigwe, A. (2018). Swimming against the tide in STEM education and gender equality: a problem of recruitment or retention in Malaysia. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1793-1809.
26. Goy, S. C., Wong, Y. L., Low, W. Y., Noor, S. N. M., Fazli-Khalaf, Z., Onyeneho, N., ... & GinikaUzoigwe, A. (2018). Swimming against the tide in STEM education and gender equality: a problem of recruitment or retention in Malaysia. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1793-1809.
27. Halim, L., Rahman, N. A., Ramli, N. A. M., & Mohtar, L. E. (2018, January). Influence of students’ STEM self-efficacy on STEM and physics career choice. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1923, No. 1, p. 020001). AIP Publishing.
28. Hall, C., Dickerson, J., Batts, D., Kauffmann, P., & Bosse, M. (2011). Are We Missing Opportunities to Encourage Interest in STEM Fields? Journal of Technology Education, 23(1), 32-46.
29. Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development, comparison with students' interests, and impact on students' achievement and self‐concept. Science education, 84(6), 689-705.
30. Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls' interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and instruction, 12(4), 447-465.
31. Kaya, S. (2008). Effects of Student-Level and Classroom-Level Factors on Elementary Students' Science Achievement in Five Countries.
32. Kelly, A. M. (2016). Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020116.
33. Kessels, U., & Taconis, R. (2012). Alien or alike? How the perceived similarity between the typical science teacher and a student’s self-image correlates with choosing science at school. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1049-1071.
34. Kessels, U., & Taconis, R. (2012). Alien or alike? How the perceived similarity between the typical science teacher and a student’s self-image correlates with choosing science at school. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1049-1071.
35. Koul, R., Lerdpornkulrat, T., & Chantara, S. (2011). Relationship between career aspirations and measures of motivation toward biology and physics, and the influence of gender. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 761-770.
36. Kranov, A. A., DeBoer, J., & Abu-Lail, N. (2014, December). Factors affecting the educational and occupational trajectories of women in engineering in five comparative national settings. In 2014 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) (pp. 21-28). IEEE.
37. Larose, S., Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Senécal, C., & Harvey, M. (2006). Trajectories of science self-efficacy beliefs during the college transition and academic and vocational adjustment in science and technology programs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 373-393.
38. Lee, J. A. (2008). Gender equity issues in technology education: A qualitative approach to uncovering the barriers.
39. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of vocational behavior, 45(1), 79-122.
40. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of counseling psychology, 31(3), 356.
41. Lockwood, P. (2006). Someone like me can be successful: Do college students need same-gender role models?. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 36-46.
42. Marks, G., & Houston, D. M. (2002). The determinants of young women's Intentions about education, career development and family life. Journal of Education and Work, 15(3), 321-336.
43. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
44. Nagengast, B., & Marsh, H. W. (2012). Big fish in little ponds aspire more: Mediation and cross-cultural generalizability of school-average ability effects on self-concept and career aspirations in science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1033.
45. Nor, N., Alrafadi, K. M., & Hussein, M. S. (2015). EMPOWERING YOUNG WOMEN AND GIRLS IN
ICT CAREERS. The Niew Journal. The voice of the Nam Woman. Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Vol 7. Pp 25
46. OECD (2015). The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence. Paris: OECD Publishing.
47. Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach, 294-315.
48. Pang, V., Mun, H. C., Ompok, C.C (2015). Early Mathematics Achievement of Children in National Government Preschool in Tuaran district, Sabah: Do Gender, Types of Preschool and Duration in preschool matter?. 1ST Borneo International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education.
49. Quimby, J. L., & De Santis, A. M. (2006). The influence of role models on women's career choices. The Career Development Quarterly, 54(4), 297-306.
50. Rajenderan, M., & Zawawi, D. (2019). Leaky Pipeline Syndrome in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Industry of Malaysia: A Conceptual Study on Female Career Barriers and Retention Management. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, 9(2).
51. Rittmayer, A. D., & Beier, M. E. (2008). Overview: Self-efficacy in STEM. SWE-AWE CASEE Overviews, 1-12.
52. Rose Amnah, A. R. (2016). Stem pedagogical approach for primary science teachers through early engineering training program.
53. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
54. Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Stuessy, C. (2015). High school students’ perceptions of the effects of international science Olympiad on their STEM career aspirations and twenty-first century skill development. Research in Science Education, 45(6), 785-805.
55. Sahranavard, M., & Hassan, S. A. (2012). The Relationship Between self-Concept, Self-Efficacy, Self- Esteem, Anxiety and Science Performance among Iranian Students. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 12(9), 1190-1196.
56. Sawtelle, V., Brewe, E., & Kramer, L. H. (2012). Exploring the relationship between self‐efficacy and retention in introductory physics. Journal of research in science teaching, 49(9), 1096-1121.
57. Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science education, 79(4), 437-473.
58. Smeding, A. (2012). Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex roles, 67(11-12), 617-629.
59. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: using in-group experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(2), 255.
60. Sultana, A. M (2011). Gender Dimension of Women in Engineering Education and Profession in the Developing Countries. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Professional Ethics and Education Conference17-19 May. Legend Hotel Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia.
61. TIMSS, (1999). An empirical study analyzing the status quo, the efficacy and some problems of the integration of students’ preconceptions. A Paper presented at the Third International Mathematics and Science Study Conference, University of Bern, Switzerland, 1999.
62. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
63. Yeoh, M. P., & Ierardi, E. (2015). Motivation and achievement of Malaysian students in studying Matriculation Biology. International Journal of Advanced Research, 3(11), 966-978.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
