Exploring Gender Differences In Science Engagement and Achievement: A Metaanalytic Approach

Nabilla Salma; Zakia Fariza Umami

doi:10.62951/ijmse.v1i1.79

Authors

Nabilla Salma Universitas Bangka Belitung
Zakia Fariza Umami

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62951/ijmse.v1i1.79

Keywords:

Gender Differences, Science Education, Engagement, Achievement, MetaAnalysis

Abstract

This metaanalysis examines gender differences in science engagement and achievement across primary and secondary education levels. By synthesizing data from over 50 studies conducted in various educational settings, the research identifies patterns in attitudes, performance, and engagement between male and female students. The analysis reveals that gender disparities in science achievement are minimal; however, engagement and interest levels show significant variances, with implications for educational strategies aimed at fostering equal engagement in science.

References

American Association of University Women. (2018). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Baker, D. R., et al. (2016). Gender differences in science engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 532-546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9634-1

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests. Science, 355(6323), 389-391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2083

Chiu, M. M. (2016). The role of mentorship in the academic success of women in STEM fields. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0033-4

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eccles, J. S., et al. (2016). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 125-146. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Gonzalez, M. A., et al. (2019). Teacher influence on student engagement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(2), 173-196. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21545

Graham, M. J., et al. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455-1456. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240487

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2014). Cooperative learning in the 21st century. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 841-851. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201631

McClure, A. R., et al. (2017). Gender differences in science engagement and achievement: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1595-1612. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1338392

Noyes, A. (2018). Gender differences in science performance: The impact of stereotypes. Research in Science Education, 48(5), 1021-1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9644-x

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results: Combined executive summaries. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07f65f-en

Riegle-Crumb, C., et al. (2019). Teacher encouragement and girls' decisions to pursue advanced science courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 116-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000267

Sadler, P. M., et al. (2016). Teacher expectations and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 693-717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9337-8

Steffens, M. C., et al. (2017). Gender stereotypes and the impact on academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 37(2), 230-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1281226

Tai, R. H., et al. (2006). Persistence in STEM: The role of extracurricular activities. Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 519-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-9012-7

Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2013). Gender differences in science engagement: Insights from a longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030229