Women In Science

Retrieved from: www.sciencestoreforthestars.com

Like many other elementary-age students, boxed science kits were a staple of my childhood. From growing sugar crystals to making glow-in-the-dark slime, I spent many an afternoon stirring concoctions and testing my experiments. I couldn’t have known it at the time, but practicing science in a hands-on, experimental way was changing the structure of my growing brain. Not only was it fostering a future interest in science, but it was also improving my scientific knowledge and abilities in STEM. Though boxed science kits surely aren’t the only way to do these things, hands-on scientific learning is crucial to a career in a STEM field. Interestingly enough, there may be gender differences in the amount of hands-on learning that children and older students engage in. For this reason, hands-on learning may play an important role in the gender gap we see in STEM fields.           

The Big Two: Ability and Interest

Retrieved from: sine.ni.com

Though there are many complex reasons why people choose certain careers, we can summarize the bulk of these reasons in two words: ability and interest. People tend to choose fields they 1) believe they are good at and 2) are passionate about. Job hours, prestige, and salary certainly also play into the equation, but are most often secondary factors. Access to hands-on learning plays a major role in both ability to do a certain job and interest in that career path.

Ability

There is certainly evidence that life experiences change the physical architecture of the brain, thus influencing its functioning. For example, in a well-known study on London cab drivers, it was found that the cab drivers had enlarged portions of their right posterior hippocampus relative to adults that did not require visual-spatial skills for their career. Cab drivers need complex way-finding skills to drive customers to where they need to be, skills that activate the right posterior hippocampus region of the brain. Interestingly, the study also found that the longer the person had been a cab driver, the more enlarged this region of the brain was (Halpern, 2007). Studies like this one suggest that cognitive ability is highly dependent upon life experiences and repeated training. This example discussed visual-spatial skills, but life experiences also build a number of other skills (such as mathematical ability and mental rotation skills) that are widely acknowledged to be important in STEM careers (Uttal, 2012). For this reason, opportunities for hands-on engagement in STEM activities that start at early ages may be crucial in building the skills that are needed for STEM professions.

Interest

In addition to physically changing certain regions of the brain, hands-on experience can also have a major impact on interest in particular fields. In a 2010 study, the effect of hands-on biological experiments on interest in those biological topics was investigated. It was found that, in general, interest levels of students who had performed hands-on experiments were higher than those who didn’t have hands-on exposure to the topic (Holstermann, 2010). Fostering an early interest in a certain topic can lead that person to seek out more related hands-on activities, increasing interest levels, and so on. Interest and passion are two of the most important factors in career choice and are also important qualities employers search for in job candidates.

Gender Differences

Unfortunately, access to the hands-on experience needed to build skills and interest in STEM fields may differ between males and females. Computer access in schools is one example; particularly in economically disadvantaged school districts, ability to use the computer often favors male students (DuBois, P. A., 1986). This situation may be improving as technology becomes increasingly common in the classroom, but teacher and parent encouragement for girls to participate in STEM activities may not be. Studies have shown that, when her children are engaged in a hands-on scientific activity, mothers are more likely to talk with their sons about the scientific process than they are with their daughters. This parental discussion and encouragement is important; interestingly, the amount of “science talk” the mothers engaged their child in correlated positively with the child’s later understanding of scientific texts (Hyde, 2007). In another similar study, parents and children in a museum were observed. When children were engaged in an interactive science exhibit, the parents were “three times more likely to explain science to boys than to girls” (Hyde, 2007). These studies show an unsettling gender gap in how parents react to their children’s engagement in hands-on science. Given that hands-on experimentation is a crucial factor in building the skills and interest needed for a STEM career, unequal access and encouragement to participate in hands-on learning may be a component in explaining the gender career gap.

Though ability and interest are indeed two of the most important factors in determining career paths, it is important to acknowledge that these factors are not solely shaped by environmental influences. There are certainly genetic factors that may predispose a strong ability or interest in STEM. Environmental components however, including hands-on learning and STEM experimentation, have been shown play an appreciable role. Ensuring that males and females have equal access to technology and science experiments, while also working to reduce gender biases surrounding hands-on learning in STEM at home and in the classroom, would allow males and females an equal opportunity to build STEM skills and interest early on in their education. If more females have the ability and the interest to pursue a career in STEM, then maybe the gender gap we see in STEM careers will come closer to closing. By explaining the scientific process to our girls at museums, or picking out a boxed science kit on glow-in-the-dark slime for her birthday, we are giving girls an equal opportunity to build the skills and the interest they need to pursue a career in STEM.

References:

DuBois, P. A., Schubert, J. G. (1986). “Do your school policies provide equal access to computers? Are you sure?” Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198603_dubois.pdf

Halpern, D. F. (2007). “Science, sex, and good sense”. Why Aren’t More Women in Science? S. J. Ceci, W. M. Williams (Ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Holstermann, N., Grube, D., Bögeholz, S. (2010). “Hands-on activities and their interest on students’ interest”. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743-757.

Hyde, J. S. (2007). “Women in science: Gender similarities in abilities and sociocultural forces”. Why Aren’t More Women in Science? S. J. Ceci, W. M. Williams (Ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Uttal, D. H., Cohen, C. A. (2012). “Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 147-181. http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/uttal/documents/UttalandCohen.pdf

As a female entering her teenage years, I was given plenty of advice about how to choose “Mr. Right”.

“Find a man who respects you!”

“It’s important to have a man who can make you laugh.”

“Make sure the man you choose can support you!”

Though well meaning, some of this advice – from family, friends, or acquaintances – contained underlying assumptions about my life goals and expectations for myself. The last piece of advice, for example, is one that I heard many variations of throughout my preteen and teen years. My family in particular, wanted to be sure I would have a husband that could provide for me and take care of me when I was no longer under their care. This advice, of course, stemmed only out of love for me. Yet, finding a man that could support me – in other words, a doctor or engineer or scientist with a hefty salary – implied that, without a man, I would be unable to support myself. I needed a man – to provide for me and to protect me from the big, scary “real world”.

Retrieved from: genius.com

Men experience a variation of this same bias. Familial and societal pressures can help instill in them the unconscious belief that they need to be those providers – if they want a woman, they are going to have to be able to make the money that she can use to get her nails done and buy her shoes. In order to do that, they need the hefty salary that comes with being a doctor or an engineer or a scientist. In short, it’s his responsibility to “bring home the bacon”. These expectations for men and women – perpetuated by families, by peers, and by society in general – may play a large role in the differences we see between men and women in later performance, behavior, and career choices. For this reason, familial and societal expectations may be at least partly responsible for the gender gap we currently see in science, engineering, and math fields.

Parental and Societal Expectations

One the reasons that familial and societal expectations for children may have such a profound effect on their later development is that these outside expectations influence the expectations that children have for themselves. In her essay “Do Sex Differences in Cognition Cause the Shortage of Women in Science?”, Melissa Hines confirms that “parental expectations have been found to influence the expectations of their children”. Other research has also found that parental expectations for what children will achieve had a “moderate to strong” influence on the children’s own goals (“Parental Expectations”, 2). So, if a child grows up in an environment where he or she is expected to pursue higher education, a degree in STEM, or even a specific career (a doctor, for example), they are likely to adopt similar goals for themselves.

Societal influences also play into the types of expectations that children form for themselves. From young ages, girls are exposed to media that depict “perfect mothers”. These girls may feel pressure to tend to the housework, cook the meals, care for the children, and other stereotypically “female” roles as a result of these influences. In academia, certain subjects may also be seen as stereotypically “male” or “female”. Gender-science stereotyping can influence the decision of males and females, positively or negatively, to pursue a career in STEM (Smyth, 2).

Retrieved from: www.womenolife.com

We have seen that parental and societal influences can influence the expectations that children develop for themselves. It follows that these self-expectations are crucially important to future academic and career outcomes. In her essay, Hines explains that expectations and beliefs have measureable influences on the brain and behavior, which have been linked to performances in subjects such as mathematics. As Hines eloquently expresses, it is truly a self-fulfilling prophecy; the expectations that parents have for their children can significantly impact whether a not a child will fulfill those expectations (Hines, 110).

Of course, when we discuss expectations and the role they play in children’s future success, we must acknowledge that the trends discussed are in no way absolute. Simply because a parent expects that his or her child will receive higher education does not ensure that they well – it merely increases the likelihood. This could be due to a variety of factors – the parent exposes his or her child to more educational opportunities during childhood, for example, or perhaps discusses higher education options during adolescence. There also may be a genetic factor; children of college graduates may be more intellectually capable of receiving a college degree, and are therefore expected to do so. Regardless of the reason, there is a clear link between expectations and future behavior that cannot be ignored, particularly in the STEM gender gap debate.

Expectations and the Gender Gap in STEM

As we have discussed, there are certainly differences in expectations between men and women, in both domestic and professional spheres. The figure below is a good illustration of how certain majors are viewed as stereotypically male or stereotypically female areas of study. These stereotypes could be also considered “society’s expectations” for males and females in the realm of academia. As Hines has established, outside expectations can have significant effects on future behavioral and professional outcomes (Hines, 110). Therefore, it is possible to say that gender stereotypes about certain fields may be an important factor in explaining the current gender gap in STEM.

Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.366.8870&rep=rep1&type=pdf

There are, of course, a number of other factors that could be used to explain the gender gap in science and math fields. However, the influence of parental and societal expectations is one that cannot be ignored. As I pursue my own career in the biological sciences, and also search for “Mr. Right”, I am beginning to acknowledge and discard the expectations that require me to fit a certain mold. Gender stereotypes for both genders are prevalent in families and in society today, such that we have all experienced them in one form or another. Perhaps with the rise of new wave feminism and the rejection of old gender expectations, we will see the STEM gender gap come a little bit closer to closing.

References

Hines, M. (2007). “Do sex differences in cognition cause the shortage of women in science?”. In J. Ceci & W. Williams (Eds). Why Aren’t More Women in Science? (101-112). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Smyth, F. L., Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A. “Implicit gender-science stereotype outperforms math scholastic aptitude in identifying science majors”. Project Implicit. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.366.8870&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(2012). “Parental expectations for their children’s academic attainment: indicators on children and youth”. Child Trends Data Bank. http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/115_Parental_Expectations.pdf

I distinctly remember the first time I sat down to take an official SAT test. Water bottle and snack on the floor next to me, calculator under my chair, four perfectly sharpened pencils sitting neatly at the top of my desk. In all the superficial ways, I was prepared. Yet I couldn’t ignore the nerves that I felt, the butterflies in my stomach, the little nagging voice in my head that worried about the score I would receive. There was no ignoring the importance of that test – on my future college acceptances, on my scholarship chances, even on my own self-worth.

The SAT test is still heavily relied on for college admissions, particularly at the most competitive schools (Ritger, 2013). Yet, the test counts for more even than that. Psychologists and public commentators often use the test as a measurement of aptitude in certain subject areas, and sometimes even as a measure of cognitive ability as a whole (Spelke, 2007, 60). Knowing this, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that some students use their SAT score as a factor in judging their own intelligence. But is the SAT really a good indicator of intelligence?

Different Ways of Thinking

It has been noted that males generally score higher on current versions of the SAT mathematics test (Spelke, 2007, 60). In their essay “Sex, Math, and Science”, published in the compilation novel Why Aren’t More Women in Science?, experts Elizabeth S. Spelke and Ariel D. Grace explain that this has often led to the conclusion that males are more adept mathematically than females. They call into question, however, the assumption that the SAT test itself is gender-neutral (Spelke, 2007, 60). What if, intrinsically, the test is formulated to favor males? How is this possible?

Through a series of studies designed to measure sex differences in mathematical ability, Spelke and Grace suggest that there are no cognitive differences between males and females throughout infancy and early childhood. However, at older ages and into adulthood, there are differences in the way the sexes approach complex mathematical problems. When problems can be solved multiple ways, the sexes tend to split in the approach they choose (Spelke, 2007, 59).

1. When asked to navigate through unfamiliar, complicated terrain, males tended to use geography to find their way. Females tended to use landmarks (Spelke, 2007, 59).
2. When asked to distinguish two different geometrical shapes, females tended to compare them using characteristic features. Males compared the shapes by mentally rotating them (Spelke, 2007, 59).
3. On mathematical assessments that can be solved multiple ways, males are more likely to use spatial reasoning while females are more likely to use algebra (Spelke, 2007, 59).

In all of these cases, both the methods listed could be used to effectively solve a math problem. However, questions can intrinsically favor using one technique or another, particularly when tests are timed. Spelke and Grace suggest that by using a higher percentage of problems favoring techniques that men tend to use, the test itself could be gender biased. So, the fact that males generally score higher on the mathematics section of the SAT doesn’t necessarily mean that men are inherently more mathematically gifted. In fact, the reality that the SAT systematically underrepresents women is widely acknowledged by testing literature (Spelke, 2007, 60).

The arguments that Spelke and Grace make in their essay tend to have widespread support. In fact, in a recent study that examined more than 123,000 students from 33 public and private universities found that SAT scores did not correlate well with future grades and graduation rates (Woodruff, 2014). While I generally agree with the points made by Spelke and Grace, I couldn’t help but notice how quickly they brought up and then dismissed the idea that greater cognitive variability in males could result in a greater number of male “geniuses”. This idea was brushed away because the reliability of the test itself, the SAT-M, was in question. However, other studies have shown that the highest scores on mathematical reasoning tests (those that are several standard deviations above the mean) belong to majority males (Kimura, 2007, 40). Spelke and Grace, while they mention that men and women earn bachelors degrees in math at equal rates, neglect to mention that women earn only 20-23% of doctorate degrees in math, physical, and computer sciences (Kimura, 2007, 43). So while women may have equivalent cognitive abilities at certain education levels, their ability at higher levels is still in question. If Spelke and Grace are judging cognitive ability on percentage of math bachelors degrees received by women, their point would be disproven when extended to the doctorate level.

Instead of attempting to determine whether males or females have superior cognitive abilities based on standardized tests, I believe we should refer to another point Spelke and Grace put forth in their essay. Before we can properly formulate standards that will test cognitive abilities, we first need to understand the nature of cognitive mathematical ability itself (Spelke, 2007, 42). Until we have more information on how male and female brains learn and problem-solve, and the similarities and differences between their methods, we cannot completely rely on these tests to determine intelligence or future success. Maybe someday, instead of sitting down to take a general SAT test, female students will be sitting down to take a test formulated with their problem-solving style in mind.

References:

Kimura, D. (2007). “‘Underrepresentation’ or misrepresentation?”. Why Aren’t More Women in Science? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Spelke, E. S., Grace, A. D. (2007). “Sex, math and science”. Why Aren’t More Women in Science? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Woodruff, J. (2014). “Study finds high SAT and ACT scores might not spell success at college”. PBS News Hour. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/study-finds-high-sat-act-scores-might-not-spell-success/

Ritger, C. (2013). “How important is the SAT? Admissions officers weigh in.” USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/28/admissions-officers-weigh-in-on-sat/2027843/