Why this innitiative?

The under-representation of girls in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) was and still is a concern for social scientists and policy makers world-wide [1-3]. Girls are proven to be as good as boys in STEM [4] worldwide and also in the Netherlands [5]. However, a much lower percentage of girls versus boys choose for STEM profiles and studies in high-school and university [6,7] as illustrated in Figure 1. The Netherlands, as indicated in UNESCO’s latest report on gender equality, has a surprisingly low proportion of female researchers when compared to other countries (one in four researchers is a woman) [3]. This raises the question of lack of talent utilization.

This is important given that the Dutch knowledge economy needs technically educated people and that a more equal involvement of men and women is desirable from both an economic and an equity point of view [8, 9]. The Dutch government has invested in attracting girls to STEM throughout various programs in the last decade. There are positive changes [6] on the level of secondary education. Unfortunately, this is not translated into female student numbers in advanced STEM-study programs. The disparity becomes even larger in post-graduate programmes (Figure 1).

Published research on this topic identified a number of factors that lead to the under-representation of girls/women in STEM, including girls’ lower self-concept (belief in own talents and qualities), lack of female role models, not stimulating learning environments, cultural stereotypes in society about girls/women and STEM [10-13]. A recent research by Microsoft [2] revealed that the Netherlands is one of the few countries where cultural stereotypes about gender and science are very strong. Popular stereotypical beliefs are: “STEM is not for women, too complicated, boring and dirty", "Girls are hard-working, but do not have talent for STEM" [14]. Such stereotypes can be internalized at childhood already [15].

Given the gender disparity becomes even larger at the university level this project focuses on how university classrooms can become more inclusive to allow talents of girls and boys to develop to their full potential. It more specifically aims at re-designing a current mathematics course using evidence-based recommendations derived by a student project. The design of the Calculus 1 course we had till 2019 did not facilitate inclusive education (only white male scientists are mentioned in the textbook, examples are very abstract, few examples to applied fields are given).

Figure 1. Gender break-down for VWO NT-profile and STEM Bachelor's and Master's degree holder in 2017-2018. Number derived from CBS data.

We are building on the best practices proved to be effective in the secondary schools and recommendations developed specifically for the universities.

These are:

1) Learning activities directly connected to real world problems (showing the creative side and societal relevance of STEM), hands-on classes and project-based learning as many girls are interested in social implications of STEM topics [17].

2) Mentoring and role models (reported to be very effective [14, 18], including peer-mentoring [18]).

3) Removing gender bias from learning materials [19].

In this project students collaborated with faculty and experts to address the questions:

Why certain groups are under-represented in science? How can these obstacles be overcome in the Calculus-course setting at a research university in order to involve all talents?

We have provided students with methods to find and integrate scientific information, helped them to get a nuanced understanding of the complexity of the problem. Students were guided to conduct a thorough literature review to register all projects implemented to increase participation of underrepresented groups in science and identify best practices before consulting with experts, other teachers, and students themselves to think of novel approaches to solve this problem. Their particular focus was to develop realistic and innovative recommendations aiming at tackling the obstacles that prevent equality and inclusion in mathematics courses at UCG.

The evidence-based recommendations produced by students were implemented to the Calculus-1 course, as well as available best practices.

References

[1] World Economic Forum (2015). The Global Gender Gap Report 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

[2] Microsoft (2017). Why Europe’s girls aren’t studying STEM. White paper. https://news.microsoft.com/europe/features/dont-european-girls-like-science-technology/

[3] Huyer S., UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030. Is the gender gap narrowing in science and engineering? UNESCO, 2015.

[4] OECD (2003). PISA dataset 2003. Paris, France: OECD.

[5] Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.

[6] https://www.vhto.nl/cijfers-onderzoek/cijfers/cijfers-havovwo/

[7] CBS2019. WO-cohorten, diploma.

https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83285NED/table?ts=1568532577091

Following STEM fields were considered: Wiskunde, natuurwetenschappen, Informatica, Techniek, industrie en bouwkunde.

[8] Booij, C., Jansen, N., Joukes, G. & Van Schaik, E. (2011). Trendanalyse gender in het bèta/technisch onderwijs. Amsterdam: VHTO, Landelijk expertisebureau meisjes/vrouwen en bèta/techniek.

[9] Eurydice Network (2011). Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency P9 Eurydice.

[10] Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement‐related choices in late modern society. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 7-37.

[11] Ceci, S. J. & Williams, W.M. (2010). The mathematics of sex. How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and Girls. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

[12] Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering’. In S.J. Ceci, & W.M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren't more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199-210). Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.

[13] Watt, H. M. G., Eccles, J. S., Durik, A. M. (2006). The leaky mathematics pipeline for girls: A motivational analysis of high school enrolments in Australia and the USA. Equal Opportunities International, 25(8), 642-659.

[14] Gender4stem Erasmus project. Identifying gender stereotypes and unconscious biases in School Education using collaborative methods

https://www.gender4stem-project.eu/fileadmin/files/documents/Deliverables/Gender4STEM_O1A1_Synthesis_FINALE.pdf

[15] Olsson, M., & Martiny, S. E. (2018). Does Exposure to Counter-stereotypical Role Models Influence Girls' and Women's Gender Stereotypes and Career Choices? A Review of Social Psychological Research. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 22-64.

[16] C. van Uffelen (2018). How can TU Delft attract more female students?

https://www.delta.tudelft.nl/article/how-can-tu-delft-attract-more-female-students

[17] Ceci, S. J. &Williams, W.M. (2010). The mathematics of sex. How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

[18] Dennehy T.C., Dasgupta N. (2017) Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (23), 5964-5969.

[19] UNESCO. 2007. Girls into Science: A training Module. Paris, UNESCO.