Gendered study choice: A literature review. A review of theory and research into the unequal representation of male and female students in mathematics, science, and technology

Educational Research and Evaluation

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 525-545

  Yazilitas, Demet ^a   Svensson, Jörgen ^b   de Vries, Geert ^a   Saharso, Sawitri ^a,b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

academic choice; education; gender; mathematics; science and technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880330765     PISSN: 13803611     EISSN: 17444187     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2013.803931     Document Type: Article

References (155)

1. Abbiss, J. (2009). Gendering the ICT curriculum: The paradox of choice. Computers & Education, 53, 343-354. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.011
2. Adamuti-Trache, M., Canadian Council on Learning, & Council of Ministers of Education (2006). Who likes science and why? Individual, family and teacher effects. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Council on Learning.
3. Adya, M., & Kaiser, K. M. (2005). Early determinants of women in the IT workforce: A model of girls' career choices. Information Technology & People, 18, 230-259. doi: 10.1108/09593840510615860
4. Ammermüller, A. (2005). Educational opportunities and the role of institutions (ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 05-044). Mannheim, Germany: ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=753366
5. Anderson, J. O., Lin, H.-S., Treagust, D. F., Ross, S. P., & Yore, L. D. (2007). Using large-scale assessment datasets for research in science and mathematics education: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 591-614. doi: 10.1007/s10763-007-9090-y
6. Andersson, R., & Olsson, A.-K. (1999). Fields of education and training. Manual [pdf] Retrieved from http://www.uib.anadolu.edu.tr/belgeler/degisim/koordinator/belgeler/Fields_of_Education_and_Training_eurostat1999.pdf
7. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). "Doing" science versus "being" a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren's constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94, 617-639. doi: 10.1002/sce.20399
8. Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence, motivation, and self-concept. In C. Dweck & E. Elliot (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 436-456). New York, NY: Guilford.
9. Ashby Plant, E., Baylor, A. L., Doerr, C. E., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2009). Changing middle-school students' attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models. Computers & Education, 53, 209-215. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.013
10. Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
12. Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 237-269. doi: 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90012-7
13. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
14. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
16. Baram-Tsabari, A., Sethi, R., Bry, L., & Yarden, A. (2006). Using questions sent to an Ask-A-Scientist site to identify children's interests in science. Science Education, 90, 1050-1072. doi: 10.1002/sce.20163
17. Baram-Tsabari, A., Sethi, R. J., Bry, L., & Yarden, A. (2009). Asking scientists: A decade of questions analyzed by age, gender, and country. Science Education, 93, 131-160. doi: 10.1002/sce.20284
18. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2008). Girls' biology, boys' physics: Evidence from free-choice science learning settings. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26, 75-92. doi: 10.1080/02635140701847538
19. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2011). Quantifying the gender gap in science interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 523-550. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9194-7
20. Barres, B. A. (2006). Does gender matter? Nature, 442, 133-136. doi: 10.1038/442133a
21. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London, UK: Sage.
22. Bedard, K., & Cho, I. (2007). The gender test score gap across OECD countries. Unpublished manuscript, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.
23. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24. Besecke, L. M., & Reilly, A. H. (2006). Factors influencing career choice for women in science, mathematics, and technology: The importance of a transforming experience. Advancing Women in Leadership Online Journal, 21. Retrieved from http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/summer2006/Besecke_Reilly.html
25. Birbaumer, A., Lebano, A., Ponzellini, A., Tolar, M., & Wagner, I. (2007). From the margins to a field of opportunities: Life story patterns of women in ICT. Women's Studies International Forum, 30, 486-498. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2007.09.001
26. 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 societies. Studies in Science Education, 47, 37-72. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2011.549621
27. Bradley, K., & Charles, M. (2004). Uneven inroads: Understanding women's status in higher education. Research in Sociology of Education, 14, 247-274. doi: 10.1016/S1479-3539(03)14011-6
28. Breen, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997). Explaining educational differentials. Rationality and Society, 9, 275-305. doi: 10.1177/104346397009003002
29. Breen, R., & Yaish, M. (2006). Testing the Breen-Goldthorpe model of educational decision making. In S. L. Morgan, D. B. Grusky, & G. S. Fields (Eds.), Mobility and inequality: Frontiers of research in sociology and economics (pp. 232-258). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
30. Britner, S. L. (2008). Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 955-970. doi: 10.1002/tea.20249
31. Brunello, G., & Checchi, D. (2007). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence. Economic Policy, 22, 781-861. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0327.2007.00189.x
32. Buccheri, G., Gürber, N. A., & Brühwiler, C. (2011). The impact of gender on interest in science topics and the choice of scientific and technical vocations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 159-178. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518643
33. Buchmann, C., & Park, H. (2009). Stratification and the formation of expectations in highly differentiated educational systems. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27, 245-267. doi: 10.1016/j.rssm.2009.10.003
34. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676
35. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157-3162. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108
36. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218-261. doi: 10.1037/a0014412
37. Charles, M. (2011). What gender is science? Contexts, 10(2), 22-28. doi: 10.1177/1536504211408795
38. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2002). Equal but separate? A cross-national study of sex segregation in higher education. American Sociological Review, 67, 573-599. doi: 10.2307/3088946
39. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 924-976. doi: 10.1086/595942
40. Charlton, E., Mills, M., Martino, W., & Beckett, L. (2007). Sacrificial girls: A case study of the impact of streaming and setting on gender reform. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 459-478. doi: 10.1080/01411920701434011
41. Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women's anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 656-664. doi: 10.1177/1948550611405218
42. Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students' voices with the voices of school science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6, 141-159.
43. Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
44. Crul, M., & Heering, L. (Eds.). (2009). The position of the Turkish and Moroccan second generation in Amsterdam and Rotterdam: The TIES study in the Netherlands. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
45. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles a new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057. doi: 10.1177/0956797610377342
46. Eccles, J. S. (1984). Sex differences in mathematics participation. In M. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 2, pp. 93-137). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
47. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women's achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135-172. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00781.x
48. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x
49. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Studying gender and ethnic differences in participation in math, physical science, and information technology. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(110), 7-14. doi: 10.1002/cd.146
50. Eccles [Parsons], J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectations, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Perspective on achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
51. Eccles, J. S., Freedman-Doan, C., Frome, P., Jacobs, J., & Yoon, K. (2000). Gender-role socialization in the family: A longitudinal approach. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 333-360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children's self and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847. doi: 10.2307/1131221
53. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103-127. doi: 10.1037/a0018053
54. England, P., Allison, P., Li, S., Mark, N., Thompson, J., Budig, M. J., & Sun, H. (2007). Why are some academic fields tipping toward female? The sex composition of US fields of doctoral degree receipt, 1971-2002. Sociology of education, 80, 23-42. doi: 10.1177/003804070708000102
55. England, P., & Li, S. (2006). Desegregation stalled: The changing gender composition of college majors, 1971-2002. Gender and Society, 20, 657-677. doi: 10.1177/0891243206290753
56. European Commission. (2007). Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training - Indicators and benchmarks 2007. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
57. European Commission. (2008). Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training - Indicators and benchmarks 2008. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
58. European Commission. (2009a). Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training - Indicators and benchmarks 2009. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
59. European Commission. (2009b). She figures 2009. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
60. European Commission. (2010a). Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training - Indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
61. European Commission. (2010b). Stocktaking 10 years of ''Women in Science" policy by the European Commission 1999-2009. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Author.
62. European Commission. (2012). Meta-analysis of gender and science research - Synthesis report. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Author.
63. Eurostat (2010). Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM). Share of women among tertiary students. Women among students in ISCED 5-6 - as % of the total students in this level. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00063&plugin=1
64. Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 517-532. doi: 10.1037/a0016030
65. Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics - A "hopeless" issue? A control-value approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 497-514. doi: 10.1007/BF03173468
66. Frome, P. M., Alfeld, C. J., Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (2006). Why don't they want a male-dominated job? An investigation of young women who changed their occupational aspirations. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 359-372. doi: 10.1080/13803610600765786
67. Furnham, A., Reeves, E., & Budhani, S. (2002). Parents think their sons are brighter than their daughters: Sex differences in parental self-estimations and estimations of their children's multiple intelligences. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 24-39. doi: 10.1080/00221320209597966
68. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
69. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Gender, power dynamics, and social interaction. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (Vol. 5, pp. 365-398). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
70. Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science, 320, 1164-1165. doi: 10.1126/science.1154094
71. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(81)90019-1
72. Hackett, G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Theoretical advances and current inquiry in career psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed., pp. 419-451). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
73. Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14, 51-67. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.002
74. Hanushek, E. A., & Wößmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C63-C76. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x
75. Haworth, C. M. A., Dale, P., & Plomin, R. (2008). A twin study into the genetic and environmental influences on academic performance in science in nine-year-old boys and girls. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1003-1025. doi: 10.1080/09500690701324190
76. Herbert, J., & Stipek, D. (2005). The emergence of gender differences in children's perceptions of their academic competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 276-295. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2005.02.007
77. Hillmert, S., & Jacob, M. (2010). Selections and social selectivity on the academic track: A life-course analysis of educational attainment in Germany. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 28, 59-76. doi: 10.1016/j.rssm.2009.12.006
78. Hubbard, L., & Datnow, A. (2005). Do single-sex schools improve the education of low-income and minority students? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36, 115-131. doi: 10.1525/aeq.2005.36.2.115
79. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
80. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S., Linn, M., Ellis, A., & Williams, C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321, 494-495. doi: 10.1126/science.1160364
81. Illeris, K. (2003). Learning, identity and self-orientation in youth. Young, 11, 357-376. doi: 10.1177/11033088030114004
82. Illeris, K., Katznelson, N., Simonsen, B., & Ulriksen, L. (2002). Ungdom, identitet og uddannelse [Youth, identity and education]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
83. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
84. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
86. Iş Güzel, Ç., & Berberoǧlu, G. (2005). An analysis of the programme for international student assessment 2000 (PISA 2000) mathematical literacy data for Brazilian, Japanese and Norwegian students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 283-314. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.006
87. Jackson, R. M. (1998). Destined for equality: The inevitable rise of women's status. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
88. Jacobs, J. A. (2003). Detours on the road to equality: Women, work and higher education. Contexts, 2(1), 32-41. doi: 10.1525/ctx.2003.2.1.32
89. Jacobs, J. E. (2005). Twenty-five years of research on gender and ethnic differences in math and science career choices: What have we learned? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(110), 85-94. doi: 10.1002/cd.151
90. Jacobs, J. E., Chin, C. S., & Bleeker, M. M. (2006). Enduring links: Parents' expectations and their young adult children's gender-typed occupational choices. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 395-407. doi: 10.1080/13803610600765851
91. Jenkins, E. W., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students' attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23, 41-57. doi: 10.1080/02635140500068435
92. Jenkins, E. W., & Pell, R. (2006). The Relevance of Science Education Project (ROSE) in England: A summary of findings. Leeds, UK: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
93. Kazim, N., Schmidt, K., & Brown, D. (2007). Perceptions and experiences that influence a Pakistani woman's decision to pursue a teaching career in computer-related technology. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(2), 73-88.
94. Kessels, U. (2005). Fitting into the stereotype: How gender-stereotyped perceptions of prototypic peers relate to liking for school subjects. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 309-323. doi: 10.1007/BF03173559
95. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.
96. Leaper, C., & Friedman, C. K. (2007). The socialization of gender. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 561-587). New York, NY: Guilford.
97. Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). Integrating person and situation perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 236-247. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.02.006
98. 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, 79-122. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
99. Levels, M., Dronkers, J., & Kraaykamp, G. (2008). Immigrant children's educational achievement in Western countries: Origin, destination, and community effects on mathematical performance. American Sociological Review, 73, 835-853. doi: 10.1177/000312240807300507
100. Li, Q. (1999). Teachers' beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Educational Research, 41, 63-76. doi: 10.1080/0013188990410106
101. Lynch, K., & Feeley, M. (2009). Gender and education (and employment): Gendered imperatives and their implications for women and men: Lessons from research for policy makers. Brussels, Belgium: Network of Experts in Social Sciences of Education and Training (NESSE). Retrieved from http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/reports/activities/reports/gender-report-pdf
102. Lynch, K., & Lodge, A. (2002). Equality and power in schools: Redistribution, recognition, and representation. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
103. Lyons, M. (2003). Inside classrooms: The teaching and learning of mathematics in social context. Dublin, Ireland: Institute of Public Administration.
104. Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and students' motivational goals. In M. L. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Volume 7 (pp. 261-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
105. Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351-373. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004
106. Meece, J. L., Parsons, J. E., Kaczala, C. M., & Goff, S. B. (1982). Sex differences in math achievement: Toward a model of academic choice. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 324-348. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.324
107. Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234-1237. doi: 10.1126/science.1195996
108. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30
109. Murphy, P., & Ivinson, G. (2004). Gender differences in educational achievement: A sociocultural analysis. In M. Olssen (Ed.), Culture and learning: Access and opportunity in the classroom (pp. 365-386). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
110. Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., Baumert, J., Köller, O., & Garrett, J. (2006). Gender and course selection in upper secondary education: Effects of academic self-concept and intrinsic value. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 323-345. doi: 10.1080/13803610600765687
111. Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L. L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 172-209.
112. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris, France: Author.
113. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006a). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies. Policy report. Paris, France: Author.
114. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006b). Where immigrant students succeed - A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Paris, France: Author.
115. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Science competencies for tomorrow's world (Vol. 1). Paris, France: Author.
116. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Equally prepared for life? How 15-year old boys and girls perform in school. Paris, France: Author.
117. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results - What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: Author.
118. Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 294-315). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
119. Relevance of Science Education. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE: Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education): A comparative study of students' views of science and science education. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo, Faculty of Education, Department of Teacher Education and School Development.
120. Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Gender as an organizing force in social relations: Implications for the future of inequality. In F. D. Blau, M. C. Brinton, & D. Grusky (Eds.), The declining significance of gender (pp. 265-287). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
121. Rommes, E., Van Gorp, B., Delwel, M., & Emons, P. (2010). Nut, noodzaak of nerds? Veranderende beelden over bètatechniek in de Nederlandse media en samenleving tussen 1989-2009 [Use, necessity or nerds? Changing images on science and technology in the Dutch media and society between 1989-2009]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Platform Beta Techniek. Retrieved from http://www.hypertekst.nl/files/platformbetatechniek/Nut_noodzaak_of_nerds.pdf
122. Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behaviour: A review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 139-152. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1993.tb00728.x
123. Scantlebury, K., & Baker, D. (2007). Gender issues in science education research: Remembering where the difference lies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 257-286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
124. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.
125. Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden: Norwegian youth's orientations towards science: Seen as signs of late modern identities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/32331/schreiner_thesis.pdf?sequence=1
126. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2005). Et meningsfullt naturfag for dagens ungdom? [A meaningful school science for today's youth?]. NorDiNa, 1(2), 18-35.
127. Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2010). Self-efficacy beliefs. In P. Penelope, B. Eva, & M. Barry (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 668-672). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
128. Schütz, G., Ursprung, H. W., & Wößmann, L. (2008). Education policy and equality of opportunity. Kyklos, 61, 279-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00402.x
129. Schütz, G., & Wößmann, L. (2005). Chancengleichheit im Schulsystem: Internationale deskriptive Evidenz und mögliche Bestimmungsfaktoren [Equal opportunities in the school system: International evidence and possible factors] (Ifo Working Paper No. 17). Munich, Germany: Ifo Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich. Retrieved from: http://www.cesifo.de
130. Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. The American Historical Review, 91, 1053-1075. doi: 10.2307/1864376
131. Singh, K., Allen, K. R., Scheckler, R., & Darlington, L. (2007). Women in computer-related majors: A critical synthesis of research and theory from 1994 to 2005. Review of Educational Research, 77, 500-533. doi: 10.3102/0034654307309919
132. Sjaastad, J. (2012). Sources of inspiration: The role of significant persons in young people's choice of science in higher education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1615-1636. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.590543
133. Smithers, A. & Robinson, P. (2006). The paradox of single-sex and co-educational schooling. Buckingham, UK: Carmichael Press.
134. Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950-958. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.9.950
135. Thomson, S. (2008). Examining the evidence from TIMSS: Gender differences in Year 8 science achievement in Australia. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 34, 73-81.
136. Trauth, E. M., Quesenberry, J. L., & Huang, H. (2008). A multicultural analysis of factors influencing career choice for women in the information technology workforce. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 16(4), 1-23. doi: 10.4018/jgim.2008100101
137. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78, 751-796. doi: 10.3102/0034654308321456
138. Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J. B. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems: A comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407-428. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102538
139. Van de Werfhorst, H. G., Sullivan, A., & Cheung, S. Y. (2003). Social class, ability and choice of subject in secondary and tertiary education in Britain. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 41-62. doi: 10.1080/0141192032000057366
140. Van Elk, R., Van der Steeg, M., & Webbink, D. (2009). The effect of early tracking on participation in higher education. Den Haag, The Netherlands: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
141. Van Elk, R., Van der Steeg, M., & Webbink, D. (2011). Does the timing of tracking affect higher education completion? Economics of Education Review, 30, 1009-1021. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.04.014
142. Van Langen, A. (2005). Unequal participation in mathematics and science education. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Garant.
143. Van Langen, A. (2007). Meisjes in havo/vwo en de keuze voor bètatechnisch onderwijs [Girls in upper secondary education and the choice for science and technology]. In A. de Grip & W. Smits (Eds.), Technotopics II: Essays over onderwijs en arbeidsmarkt voor bètatechnici (pp. 39-49). Den Haag, The Netherlands: Platform Bèta Techniek.
144. Van Langen, A., & Dekkers, H. (2005). Cross-national differences in participating in tertiary science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Comparative Education, 41, 329-350. doi: 10.1080/03050060500211708
145. Van Langen, A., & Driessen, G. (2006). Sekseverschillen in onderwijsloopbanen [Gender differences in educational careers]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: ITS. Retrieved from http://its.ruhosting.nl/publicaties/pdf/r1656.pdf
146. Van Langen, A., Rekers-Mombarg, L., & Dekkers, H. (2006). Sex-related differences in the determinants and process of science and mathematics choice in pre-university education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 71-94. doi: 10.1080/09500690500338920
147. Van Langen, A., Rekers-Mombarg, L., & Dekkers, H. (2008). Mathematics and science choice following introduction of compulsory study profiles into Dutch secondary education. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 733-745. doi: 10.1080/01411920802041590
148. Watt, H. M. G. (2006). The role of motivation in gendered educational and occupational trajectories related to maths. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 305-322. doi: 10.1080/13803610600765562
149. Wigfield, A., Battle, A., Keller, L. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Sex differences in motivation, self-concept, career aspiration and career choice: Implications for cognitive development. In A. V. McGillicudy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.), Biology, society, and behavior: The development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 93-124). Westport, CT.: Ablex.
150. Wößmann (2009). International evidence on school tracking: A review. CESifo DICE Report, Journal for Institutional Comparisons, 7(1), 26-34. Retrieved from https://www.cesifo-group.de
151. Wößmann, L., & Schütz, G. (2006). Efficiency and equity in European education and training systems. Analytical report for the European commission prepared by the European expert network on economics of education (EENEE) to accompany the communication and staff working paper by the European commission under the same title. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/eenee.pdf
152. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Cambridge (MA).
153. Young, R. A., Antal, S., Bassett, M. E., Post, A., Devries, N., & Valach, L. (1999). The joint actions of adolescents in peer conversations about career. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 527-538. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0246
154. Younger, M. R., & Warrington, M. (2006). Would Harry and Hermione have done better in single-sex classes? A review of single-sex teaching in coeducational secondary schools in the United Kingdom. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 579-620. doi: 10.3102/00028312043004579
155. Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1036-1058. doi: 10.1002/tea.20195