217
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    13
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      STEM Education.

      1 , 1 , 2
      Annual review of sociology
      Annual Reviews

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, especially for traditionally disadvantaged groups, is widely recognized as pivotal to the U.S.'s long-term economic growth and security. In this article, we review and discuss current research on STEM education in the U.S., drawing on recent research in sociology and related fields. The reviewed literature shows that different social factors affect the two major components of STEM education attainment: (1) attainment of education in general, and (2) attainment of STEM education relative to non-STEM education conditional on educational attainment. Cognitive and social psychological characteristics matter for both major components, as do structural influences at the neighborhood, school, and broader cultural levels. However, while commonly used measures of socioeconomic status (SES) predict the attainment of general education, social psychological factors are more important influences on participation and achievement in STEM versus non-STEM education. Domestically, disparities by family SES, race, and gender persist in STEM education. Internationally, American students lag behind those in some countries with less economic resources. Explanations for group disparities within the U.S. and the mediocre international ranking of US student performance require more research, a task that is best accomplished through interdisciplinary approaches.

          Related collections

          Most cited references175

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The gender similarities hypothesis.

          Janet Hyde (2005)
          The differences model, which argues that males and females are vastly different psychologically, dominates the popular media. Here, the author advances a very different view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. Results from a review of 46 meta-analyses support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender differences can vary substantially in magnitude at different ages and depend on the context in which measurement occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and relationships. Copyright (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

              Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annu Rev Sociol
                Annual review of sociology
                Annual Reviews
                0360-0572
                0360-0572
                Aug 01 2015
                : 41
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
                [2 ] Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
                Article
                NIHMS715957
                10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145659
                4712712
                26778893
                d3f792cf-820d-4b86-8404-b98bc141b030
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article