GENDER EQUITY IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY

Handbook for Achieving Gender Equity through Education, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 255-279

  Burger, Carol J ^a   Abbott, Gypsy ^b   Tobias, Sheila ^c   Koch, Janice ^d   Vogt, Christina M ^e   Sosa, Teri ^f   Bievenue, Lisa ^g   Carlito, Delores ^c   Strawn, Candace ^h  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^c Hofstra University ^*

^d HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING   (United States)

^f SAINT JOSEPH S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^h GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85117719650     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315759586-24     Document Type: Chapter

References (257)

1. Abbott, G., Morrell, C., Bievenue, L., Bracey, B., and Scripa, R. (March, 2006). Building intellectual capital in young girls. Panel presented at the meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, FL.
2. Adamson, L., Foster, M., Roark, M., and Reed, D. (1998). Doing a science project: Gender differences during childhood. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(8), 845-857.
3. Ahuja, M. K. (2002). Women in information technology profession: A literature review, synthesis, and research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 11, 20-34.
4. Ahuja, M., Herring, S. C., Ogan, C., and Robinson, J. (2004, April). Exploring antecedents of gender equitable outcomes in IT higher education. Proceedings of SIGMIS’04, Tucson, AZ.
5. Alper, J. (1993). The pipeline is leaking women all the way. Science, 260, 409-411.
6. American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1992). How schools shortchange girls. New York: Marlowe and Company.
7. American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1998). Separated by sex: A critical look at a single-sex education for girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
8. American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1999). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. Washington, DC: Amer ican Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
9. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education. (2000). Techsavvy:Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC:American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
10. American Medical Association. (2003). Women in medicine statistics. Retrieved December 15, 2005, from http://www.ama-assn.org/
11. Andre, T., Whigham, M., Hendrickson, A., and Chambers, S. (1999). Competency beliefs, positive affect, and gender stereotypes of elementary students and their parents about science versus other school projects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 719-747.
12. Association of American Medical Colleges. (2003, November). Applicants to U.S. medical schools increase women the majority for the first time. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2003/031104.htm
13. Association of American Universities. (2006, January). National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative: Meeting America’s Economic and Security Challenges in the 21st Century. AAU white paper on competitiveness. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://www.aau. edu/reports/NDEII.pdf
14. Augustine, N. (Chair). (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16. Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729-735.
17. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:Freeman.
18. Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory, Psychology and Health, 13, 623-649.
19. Barman, C. (1997). Students’ views of scientists and science: Results from a national study. Science and Children, 35(1), 18-24.
20. Bailyn, L. (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. MIT Faculty Newsletter, Special Edition, 11, 1-15.
21. Bell, A. E., Sherman, S. J., Iserman, E., and Logel, C. (2003). Stereotype threat and women’s performance in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(4), 307-312.
22. Bem, S. L. (1995). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23. Benbow, C. P., and Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262-1264.
24. Benbow, C. P., and Stanley, J. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 598-622.
25. Benckert, S., and Staberg, E. (2000). Women in chemistry and physics:Questions of similarities and difference. In S. V. Rosser (guest editor), Women’s Studies Quarterly: Building inclusive science: Connecting women’s studies and women in science and engineering, 28(1/2), 24-45.
26. Benjamin, E. (1999). Disparities in the salaries and appointments of academic women and men. Academe, 85(1), 60-62.
27. Bianchini, J. A., and Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177-209.
28. Blum, L. (2001). Women in computer science: The Carnegie Mellon experience. In The future of the university: The university of the future. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/_ lblum/PAPERS/women_in_computer_science.pdf
29. Blum, L., and Frieze, C. (2005). In a more balanced computer science environment, similarity is the difference and computer science is the winner. Computing Research News, 17(3). Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://www.cra.org/CRN/articles/may05/blum.frieze.html
30. Bombardieri, M. (2005, January 17). Summers’ remarks on women draw fire. The Boston Globe. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://www. boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_ remarks_on_women_draw_fire/
31. Bong, M., and Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34(3) 139-153.
32. Borg, A., Budil, K., Ducloy, M., and McKenna, J. (2005). Attracting girls into physics. Women in physics: 2nd IUPAP International Conference on Women in Physics. AIP Conference Proceedings, 795, 7-10.
33. Business Roundtable. (2005, July). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation initiative. Retrieved June 30, 2006, from http://www.businessroundtable.org/pdf/20050803001TAPfinalnb.pdf
34. Camp, T. (1997, May). A decade in the university pipeline. Computing Research News.
35. Camp, T., Miller, K., and Davies, V. (2000). The incredible shrinking pipeline unlikely to reverse. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from http:// www.mines.edu/fs_home/tcamp/new-study/new-study.html
36. Campbell, P. B., Jolly, E. J., and Perlman, L. (2004). Engagement, capacity and continuity: A trilogy for student success. Retrieved December 2, 2005, from http://www.campbell-kibler.com
37. Campbell, P., and Perlman, L. (2005). What brings workers to information and why do they stay? Retrieved on November 30, 2005, from http://www.campbell-kibler.com
38. Campbell, P. B., and Storo, J. N. (1994). Girls are… Boys are… Retrieved November 30, 2005, from http://www.campbell-kibler.com
39. Canada, K., and Brusca, F. (1991). The technological gender gap: Evidence and recommendations for educators and computer-based instruction designers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 43-51.
40. Changing America (1989). The new face of science and engineering. Final report of the National Science Foundation Task Force on Women, Minorities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology, Washington, DC. ED #317386
41. Chapman, A. (1997). A great balancing act: Equitable education for girls and boys. Washington, DC: National Association of Independent Schools.
42. Clewell, B. C., Anderson, B. T., and Thorpe, M. E. (1992). Breaking the barriers: Helping female and minority students succeed in mathematics and science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43. Cohoon, J. M., and Aspray, W. (2006). Women and information technology:Research on the reasons for underrepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. College Board. (1999). National Summary Reports. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
45. Colley, A. M., Gale, M. T., and Harris, T. A. (1994). Effects of gender role identity and experience on computer attitude components. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(2), 129-137.
46. Collis, B. A., and Williams, R. L. (1987). Cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in adolescents’ attitudes toward computers and selected school subjects. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 17-27.
47. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP). (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
48. Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation:Findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 5-20.
49. Crandall, V. C. (1969). Sex differences in expectancy of intellectual and academic reinforcement. In C. P. Smith (Ed.). Achievement-related motives in children, (pp. 11- 45). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
50. Creamer, E. G., and Laughlin, A. (2005). Self-authorship and women’s career decision-making. Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 13-27.
51. Creamer, E. G., Meszaros, P. S., and Burger, C. J. (2004). Characteristics of young women with an interested in information technology. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 10(1), 67-78.
52. Crombie, G., Abarbanel, T., and Anderson, C. (2000). All-female computer science. Science Teacher, 67(3), 40-43.
53. Dai, Y., Moon, S., and Feldheusen, J. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 45-63.
54. Dryburgh, H. (2000). Underrepresentation of girls and women in computer science: Classification of 1990s research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 181-202.
55. Durndell, A. (1990). Why do female students tend to avoid computer studies? Research in Science and Technological Education, 8(2), 163-170.
56. Dyer, S. K. (Ed.). 2004. Under the microscope: A decade of gender equity projects in the sciences. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
57. Ealy, J., and Hermanson, J. (2006, March). Molecular images in organic chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 59-68.
58. Eccles, J. (1983). Attributional processes as mediators of sex differences in achievement. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership, 3(1), 19-27
59. Eccles, J., Adler, S., and Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement:A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 26-43
60. Eccles, J., and Harold, R. (1992). Gender differences in educational and occupational patterns among the gifted. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and D. L. Ambroson. Talent Development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium or Talent Development (pp. 2-30). New York: Trillium Press.
61. Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
62. Elekonich, M. (2001). Contesting territories: Female-female aggression in the song sparrow. In M. Mayberry, B. Subramaniam, and L.H. Weasel, (Eds.), Feminist Science Studies (pp. 97-105). Oxford, UK:Routledge.
63. Elliot, B., Oty, K., McArthur, J., and Clark, B. (2001). The effect of an interdisciplinary algebra/science course on students’ problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(6), 811-816.
64. Feather, N. (1982). Expectations and actions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Feather, N. T. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: Testing the role of personal values within an expectancy-valence framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 381-391.
66. Feder, T. (2002, May). Women and some men, ask why women don’t flock to physics. Physics Today, 55(5), 24-26.
67. Fogg, P. (2005). Harvard’s president wonders aloud about women in science and math. The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Faculty, 51(21), A12. Retrieved July, 7, 2006, from http://chronicle.com
68. Fox, M. F. (2000). Organizational environments and doctoral degrees awarded to women in science and engineering departments. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 28(1/2), 47-61.
69. Fox, M. F. (2001). Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and careers. Gender and Society, 15, 654-666.
70. Fox, M. F. (2003). Gender, faculty, and doctoral education in science and engineering. In L. Hornig (Ed). Equal rites, unequal outcomes:Women in American research universities (pp. 91-109). New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
71. Fox, M. F., Johnson, D., and Rosser, S. V. (2005). Women, gender, and technology. Champaign-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
72. Fredricks, J. A., and Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 519-533.
73. Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
74. Gatta, M. (2002). Women in science, engineering, and technology:Equity in the 21st century. Research in brief. Rutgers Center for Women and Work. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.rci. rutgers.edu/_cww/dataPages/rbwomeninset.pdf
75. Gender Advisory Board. (2000). Increasing the Participation of Women in Computer Science and Engineering (CSE). Recommendations to the World Summit on the Information Society. United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development Global Alliance for Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce. Retrieved on April 15, 2006, from http://gab.wigsat.org/wsis.html
76. Gess-Newsome, J., and Lederman, N. G. (Eds). (1999). Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
77. Gibbons, M. (2004). A new look at engineering. Washington, D.C.:American Society for Engineering Education.
78. Glazer-Raymo, J. (1999). Shattering the myths: Women in academe Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Press.
79. Goodman Research Group, Inc. (2002). A comprehensive evaluation of women in engineering programs. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from http://www.grginc.com
80. Gouldner, H. (1985). Women in engineering. Retrieved August 27, 2005 from http://www.nap.edu/books/0309035864/html/57.html
81. Grandy, J. (1994). Gender and ethnic differences among science and engineering majors: Experiences, achievements, and expectations (RR-94-30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
82. Greenberg, S. (1985). Educational equity in early education environments. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education (pp. 457-469). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
83. Gurer, D., and Camp, T. (1998). Investigating the incredible shrinking pipeline for women in computer science. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://women.acm.org/documents/finalreport.pdf
84. Gurer, D., and Camp, T. (2002). An ACM-W literature review on women in computing. AC SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 121-127.
85. Hale, K. V. (2005). Gender Differences in Computer Technology Achievement. Meridian: A middle school computer technologies journal, 8(1), 1-4.
86. Hartline, B. K., and Michelman-Ribeiro, A. (2005, May). Women in Physics. Second IUPAP International Conference on Women in Physics, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 795, held 23-25 May, 2005 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2005.
87. Henzel, N. (1991). Realizing Gender equality in higher education: The need to integrate work/family issues (ASHE-EIC Higher Education Report No. 2). Washington, D C: The George Washington University School of Education and Human Development.
88. Herzig, A. H. (2004). Becoming mathematicians: Women and students of color choosing and leaving doctoral mathematics. Review of educational research, 74(2), 171-214.
89. Hewitt, P. G. (2005). Conceptual Physics. New York: Addison Wesley.
90. Heyman, G. D., and Legare, C. H. (2004). Children’s beliefs about gender differences in academic social domains. Sex Roles, 50(3/4), 227-239.
91. Hidi, S., and Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness: A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 179-94.
92. Holton, G. (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperative education reform.A Report to the nation and the secretary of education, United Sates department of education/by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.ed. gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
93. Hopkins, N. (1999). MIT and gender bias: Following up on victory. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(40). Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/colloquy/99/genderbias/background.htm
94. Huang, G., Taddese, N., Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in college science and engineering education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics. NCES 2000-601
95. Information Technology Association of America (2003, May 5). ITAA Blue Ribbon Panel on IT Diversity. Presented at the National IT Workforce Convocation, Arlington, VA. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://www.itaa.org
96. Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) Task Force Report. (2005). Building the 21st century information technology workforce:Groups underrepresented in the IT workforce. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://www.itaa.org/workforce/studies.recruit.htm
97. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. (2005, October 26-28). Report from the Working Group on Women in Physics. Presented at the 25th IUPAP General Assembly, Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved June 18, 2006, from http://www.iupap.org/wg/wip/report-05.html
98. Ivie, R., and Guo, S. (2006). Women physicists speak again, AIP Report (AIP Publication Number R-441). College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.
99. Ivie, R., and Ray, K. N. (2005). Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2005, AIP Report (AIP Publication Number R-430.02). College Park, MD:American Institute of Physics.
100. Jackson, J. K. (2001). Unequal partners: Rethinking gender roles in animal behavior. In M. Mayberry, B. Subramaniam, and L. H. Weasel, (Eds.), Feminist Science Studies (pp. 115-119). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
101. Jackson, L., Fleury, R., Girvin, J., and Gerard, D. (1995). The numbers game: Gender and attention to numerical information. Sex Roles, 33(7/8), 559-568.
102. Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., and Stanne, M. B. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computerassisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 668-677.
103. Jolly, E. J., Campbell, P. B., and Perlman, L. (2004). Engagement, Capacity and Continuity: A Trilogy For Student Success. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.smm.org/ecc/
104. Jussim, L., and Eccles, J. E. (1992). Teacher expectations II: Construction and reflection of student achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 947-961.
105. Kahle, J. B., and Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 131-140.
106. Kahle, J. B., and Meece, J. (1994). Research on girls and science: Lessons and applications. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 542-576). Washington, DC:National Science Teachers Association.
107. Karniol, R., and Aida, A. (1997). Judging toy breakers: Gender stereotypes have devious effects on children. Sex Roles, 36(3/4), 195-205.
108. Kekelis, L. S., Ancheta, R. W., and Heber, E. (2005). Hurdles in the pipeline:Girls and technology careers. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 26(1), 99-109.
109. Ketcham, L. M., Frehill, L. M., and Jeser-Cannavale, C. (2004). Women in engineering: A review of the 2004 literature. Retrieved August 20, 2005 from http://www.swe.org.
110. Kinsman, S. (2001). Life, sex, and cells. In C. M. Musil (Ed.), Gender, science, and the undergraduate curriculum: Building two-way streets (pp. 17-28). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
111. Kirkpatrick, H., and Cuban, L. (1998). Should be we worried? What the research says about gender differences in access, use, attitudes, and achievement with computers. Education and Computing, 38(4), 56-61.
112. Klawe, M., and Leveson, N. (2001). Refreshing the nerds. Communications of the ACM, 44(7), 67-68.
113. Klein, S. (Ed.). (1985). Handbook for achieving sex equity through education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
114. Kleinman, S. (1998). Overview of feminist perspectives on the ideology of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 837-845.
115. Koch, J. (1996). Gender study of private school students’ attitudes and beliefs about school life. Resources in Education (RIE). ERIC document ED 398650 http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=trueand_pageLabel=RecordDetailsandERICExtSearch_Search Value_0=ED398650andERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accnoand objectId=0900000b8011eda6
116. Koch, J. (1998). Response Karen Meyer: Reflections on being female in school science. Journal of Research in Teaching Science, 35(4), 473-474.
117. Koch. J. (2005). Creating gender equitable classroom environments. In G. Kiger and D. Byrnes (Eds.). Common Bonds: Anti-bias teaching in a diverse society (pp. 91-104). Wheaton, MD: ACEI.
118. Kolar, R. L., and Sabatini, D. A. (1996). Coupling team learning and computer technology in project-driven undergraduate engineering education. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber_569937
119. Labor Law Talk. (2006). Dictionary by Labor Law Talk. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Information_science
120. Larkin, J. (1994). Sexual harassment: High school girls speak out. Toronto, CA: Second Story Press.
121. Lederman, M. (2005, May 14). Science as a social enterprise. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(36). Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http:// chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i36/36b01601.htm
122. Lee, A. C. K. (2003). Undergraduate students’ gender differences in IT skills and attitudes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 490-503.
123. Leventman, P., and Finley, M. (2005). Women in the workforce: The societal context of IT employment and feelings, attitudes and opinions of IT professionals. Retrieved August 30, 2005, from http://www. campbell-kibler.com/SocialContextIT.doc
124. Levine, T. (2004). Girls in computer-supported science classrooms: Perceived classroom climate and attitudes toward the learning of science. Retrieved June 3, 2004, from http://www.wigset.org/gasat/36.txt
125. Lewerke, W. C., Robbins, S., Sawyer, R., and Hovland, M. (2004). Predicting engineering major status from mathematics achievement and congruence. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(2), 135-149.
126. Lewin, T. (2006, July 9). At colleges, women are leaving men in the dust. The New York Times, p. 1, section 1.
127. Linn, M. (1990). Gender, mathematics and science: Trends and recommendations. Mystic, CT: Council of Chief State Officers Summer Institute.
128. Linn, M. (2000). Controversy, the Internet, and deformed frogs: Making science accessible. Who will do the science of the future? (p. 16-27). In National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Women in Science and Engineering. Who Will Do the Science of the Future? A Symposium on Careers of Women in Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
129. Linn, M. C. (2005). Technology and gender equity: What works? In N. F. Russo, C. Chan, M. B. Kenkel, C. B. Travis, and M. Vasquez (Eds.), Women in Science and Technology. New York: American Psychological Association.
130. Linn, M., and Hsi, S. (1999). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
131. Linnenbrink, E. A., and Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313-327.
132. Logan, K. (2003). Do girls prefer a different computing learning environment to boys? An analysis of the computing learning environment of upper secondary students in Wellington, New Zealand. Proceedings of the 2003 Australian Women in IT Conference (pp. 29-37). Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.auswit.org/2003/papers/1-4_Logan.pdf
133. Long, J. S. (Ed.). (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington DC:National Academy Press.
134. MacDonald, J. (2004). Gurl tech: Net basics. [Nortel Network Kidz Online Streaming video] Retrieved January 3, 2005 from http:// www.kidzonline.com/nclb2004.
135. Margolis, J., and Fisher, A. (2001). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
136. Margolis, J., Fisher, A., and Miller, F. (1999). The anatomy of interest:Women in undergraduate computer science. Pittsburgh, PA:Carnegie Mellon University Press.
137. Margolis, J., Fisher, A., and Miller, F. (2000). The anatomy of interest:Women in undergraduate computer science. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 28, 104-127.
138. Margolis, J., Fisher, A., and Miller, F. (2002). Caring about connections:Gender and computing. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University Press.
139. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., and Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). Findings from IEA’s Trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
140. Mason, M. A., and Goulden, M. (2002). Do babies matter?: The effect of family formation on the life long careers of women. Academic Search Premier, 88, 21-28.
141. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
142. McCormick, N., and McCormick, J. (1991). Not for men only: Why so few women major in computer science. College Student Journal, 25, 345-350.
143. McGinnis, R., and Pearsall, J. (1998). Teaching elementary science methods to females: A male professor’s experience from two perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 919-949.
144. McIlwee, J., and Robinson, J. G. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
145. Meece, J., and Eccles, J. (1993). Recent trends in research on gender and education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 313-319.
146. Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. New York: Harper and Row.
147. Meszaros, P. S., Creamer, E. G., Burger, C. J., and Matheson, J. (2005). Mothers and millennials: Career talking across the generations. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM (online journal), 16(1).
148. Meyer, K. (1995). Reflections on being female in school science: Toward a praxis of teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 463-371.
149. MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. (1995). Women undergraduate enrollment in electrical engineering and computer science at MIT. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
150. Morrell, C., Cotton, S., Sparks, A., and Spurgas, A. (2004). Computer mania day: An effective intervention for increasing youth’s interest in technology. Baltimore: Center for Women and Information Technology, University of Maryland.
151. Morris, L. K. (2002). Women in information technology literature review: Recruitment, retention and persistence factors. Paper prepared for presentation at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, TN. (ED 477715) Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/42/58.pdf
152. Murray, C. (2005). The inequality taboo. Commentary Magazine, 120(2), 13-22.
153. Musil, C. M. (Ed.) (2001). Gender, science, and the undergraduate curriculum:Building two-way streets. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities
154. National Council for Research on Women. (2001). Balancing the equation:Where are women and girls in science, engineering, and technology? Washington, DC: Author.
155. National Institute for Science Education. (1998). Women and men of the engineering path: A model for analysis of undergraduate careers (ED Publication No. PLLI 98-8055). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
156. National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
157. National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating program effectiveness:Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
158. National Science Board. (2004a). Science and engineering indicators 2004 (Vols. 1-2; NSB 04-1, NSB 04-1A) Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
159. National Science Board. (2004b). Broadening participation in science and engineering faculty (NSB 04-41). Retrieved June 5, 2005, from http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key_ nsb0441
160. National Science Foundation. (1998). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering (NSF 99-338). Arlington, VA: Author.
161. National Science Foundation. (2000). Land of plenty: Diversity as America’s competitive edge in science, engineering, and technology. Arlington, VA.: Author. cawmset0409. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key_ cawmset0409
162. National Science Foundation. (2003). New formulas for America’s workforce: Girls in science and engineering (NSF 03-207). Arlington, VA: Author.
163. National Science Foundation. (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering (NSF 04-317). Arlington, VA: Author.
164. National Science Foundation. (2006). First-time SandE graduate enrollment of foreign students drops for the third straight year. Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/inf brief/nsf06321/
165. Nauta, M., Epperson, D., and Kahn, J. (1998). A multiple-groups analysis of higher-level career aspirations among females in mathematics, science and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(4), 483-496.
166. Nauta, M., Epperson, D., and Waggoner, K. (1999). Perceived causes of success and failure: Are women’s attributions related to persistence in engineering majors? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 663-676.
167. Nelson, L. J., Weise, G. M., and Cooper, J. (1991). Getting started with computers: Experience, anxiety, and relational style. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 185-202.
168. Nelson, D. J., and Rogers, D. C. (2005). A national analysis of diversity in science and engineering faculties at research universities. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from http://cheminfo.chem.ou.edu/faculty/djn/djn.html.
169. Nicholls J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and academic motivation. In R. Ames and C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (pp. 39-73) (Vol. 1., Student motivation). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.].
170. Noble, D. F. (1992). A world without women: The Christian clerical culture of western science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
171. Ogan, C. L., Herring, S. C., Ahuja, M., and Robinson, J. (2005, May). The more things change, the more they stay the same: Gender differences in attitudes and experiences related to computing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York. Retrieved March 21, 2006 from http://ella.slis. indiana.edu/_herring/ica.pdf]
172. Oliver, J. (2005). Graduate enrollment in science and engineering programs up in 2003, but declines for first-time foreign students. INFOBRIEF SRS. National Science Foundation, 05-317. Retrieved February 8, 2007. from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf05317/
173. Orenstein, P. (1995). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. New York: Doubleday.
174. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
175. Palloff, R., and Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
176. Pearl, A., Pollack, M. E., Riskin, E., Thomas, B., Wolf, E., and Wu, A. (1990). Becoming a computer scientist: A report by the ACM Committee on the Status of Women in Computer Science. Communications of the ACM, 33(11), 47-57.
177. Phillips, J., and Hausbeck, K. (2001). Just beneath the surface: Rereading geology, rescripting the knowledge/power nexus. In M. Mayberry, B. Subramaniam, and L. H. Weasel (Eds.), Feminist Science Studies, (pp. 225-137). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
178. Plucker, J. (1996). Secondary science and mathematics teachers and gender equity: Attitudes and attempted interventions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 737-751.
179. Postsecondary science and math programs face Title IX review. (2006, April 3). Feminist Daily News Wire. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http:// www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id_9596
180. Reece, C. C. (1986). Gender and microcomputers: Implications for the school curriculum. Paper presented at the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN, November 19-21, 1986.
181. Riley, D. (2003). Pedagogies of liberation in an engineering thermodynamics class. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Nashville, TN. Session 2692.
182. Roldon, M., Soe, L., and Yakura, E. K. (2004, April, 22-24). Perceptions of chilly IT organizational contexts and their effect on the retention and promotion of women in IT. Presented at SIGMIS 04, Tucson, AZ. (pp. 108-13).
183. Rolison, D. R. (2004). Title IX as a change strategy for women in science and engineering… and what comes next. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.barnard.edu/bcrw/womenandwork/rolison. htm#end2. Women, Work and the Academy: Strategies for Responding to “Post-Civil Rights Era” Gender Discrimination. New York, NY. Barnard College.
184. Rop, C. (1997). Breaking the gender barrier in the physical sciences. Educational Leadership, 55(4), 58-60.
185. Rosser, S. V. (1990). Female-friendly science: Applying women’s studies methods and theories to attract students. New York: Pergamon Press.
186. Rosser, S. V. (1997). Re-engineering female friendly science. New York:Teachers College Press.
187. Rossiter, M. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
188. Rossiter, M. (1995). Women scientists in America: Before affirmative action 1940-1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
189. Rutherford, F. J., and Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
190. Sadker, M., and Sadker, D. (1982). Sex equity handbook for schools. New York: Longman.
191. Sadker, M., and Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Touchstone Press.
192. Sadker, M., and Sadker, D. (2005). Teachers, schools, and society (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
193. Sadker, M., Sadker, D., and Klein, S. (1991). The issue of gender in elementary and secondary education. In G. Grant (Ed.) Review of research in education, (pp. 269-334). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
194. Sanders, J. (2005 July). Teaching teachers about gender equity in computing. Paper presented at crossing cultures, changing lives: Integrating research on girls’ choices of IT Careers, Oxford, England.
195. Sanders, J. (2006). Gender and technology in education: A research review. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, and L. Smulyan (Eds.), Handbook of gender in education. London: Sage Publications.
196. Sanders, J., Koch, J., and Urso, P. (1997). Right from the start: Instructional activities for teacher educators in mathematics, science and technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
197. Sandoval, G. (2005, July). Video-game world remains male territory. The Associated Press. Retrieved July 25, 2005, from http://www. azcentral.com/business/articles/0725gamegirls25.htm
198. Santiago, A., and Einarson, M. (1998). Background characteristics as predictors of academic self-confidence and self-efficacy among graduate science and engineering students. Research in Higher Education, 39(2), 163-198.
199. Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., and Mahoney, K. M. (2000). The American freshman: National norms for Fall 2000, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
200. Schiebinger, L. (1989). The mind has no sex: Women and the origins of modern science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
201. Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspectives on achievement behaviour. Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58.
202. Schunk, D. H., and Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning. Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
203. Selby, C. C. (2004). From the needs of women to the needs of science. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 22(1), 46-47.
204. Selby, L., Young, A., and Fisher, D. (1997). Increasing the participation of women in tertiary level computing courses: what works and why. In R. Kevill, R. Oliver, and R. Phillips (Eds). What works and why. Proceedings of the 14th annual Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education '97 conference. Curtin University of Technology, Perth, 8-10 December.
205. Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79(4), 437-473.
206. Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
207. Shashaani, L. (1994). Socioeconomic status, parents’ sex-role stereotypes, and the gender gap in computing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 433-451.
208. Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(1), 37-51.
209. Sheldon, J. (2004). Gender stereotypes in educational software for young children. Sex Roles, 51(7-8), 433-444.
210. Sjoberg, S., and Imsen, G. (1988). Gender and science education I. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 218-248). London: Falmer Press.
211. Skaalvik, S., and Skaalvik, E. M. (2004). Gender performance in math and verbal self-concept, performance and expectations and motivation. Sex Roles, 50(3/4), 241-252.
212. Sommers, C. H. (2000). The war against boys: How misguided feminism is harming our young men. New York: Simon and Schuster
213. Sonnert, G. (1995a). Gender differences in science careers: The Project Access Study. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
214. Sonnert, G. (1995b). Who succeeds in science?: The gender dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
215. Sosa, T. L. (2004). Voices of women computer professionals: Perspectives on achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL.
216. Spanier, B. (2001). Foundation for a “new biology” proposed in molecular cell biology. In M. Lederman and I. Bartsch (Eds.), The Gender and Science Reader (pp. 272-288). New York: Routledge.
217. Spertus, E. (1991). Why are there so few female computer scientists? Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ellens/Gender/pap/pap.html
218. Steele, C., and Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
219. Steinke, J. (2004). Science in cyberspace: Science and engineering World Wide Web sites for girls. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 7-30.
220. Strawn, C. A. (1999). Moving in a man’s world: Three qualitative case studies illustrate how women can survive in male-dominated environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.
221. Sumner, M., and Niederman, F. (2002). The impact of gender differences on job satisfaction, job turnover, and career experiences of information systems professionals. Special Interest Group on Computer Personnel Research Annual Conference archive. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research (pp. 154-162).
222. Summers, L. H. (2005). Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce, January 14-15, 2006. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://www.president.harvard. edu/speeches/2005/nber.html
223. These proceedings provide a compilation of the papers presented at the annual conference of the Association for Computing Machinery’s (ACM) Special Interest Group on Computer Personnel Research (SIGCPR), in Kristiansand, Norway, May 14--16, 2002
224. Swim, J. K., and Sanna, L. J. (1996). He’s skilled, she’s lucky: A meta-analysis of observers’ attributions for women and men’s successes and failures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 507-519.
225. Sztein, A. E. (2005). Women in science: Assessing progress, promoting action. Washington, DC: Association for Women in Science.
226. Taylor, H. G., and Mounfield, L. (1994). Exploration of the relationship between prior computing experience and gender on success in college computer science. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(4), 291-306.
227. Teague, J. (2002). Women in computing: What brings them to it, what keeps them in it? Women and Computing, 34(2), 147-158.
228. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation of America.
229. Tobias, S., and Birrer, F. A. J. (1999). Who will study physics, and why? European Journal of Physics, 20, 365-372.
230. Tobias, S., Chubin, D. E., and Aylesworth, K.(1995). Rethinking science as a career: Perceptions and realities in physical sciences. Washington DC: Research Corporation.
231. Tobias, S., Urry, M., and Venkatesan, A. (2002). Physics: For women, the last frontier. Science, 296(17), 1201.
232. Trauth, E. M. (2002). Odd girl out: An individual differences perspective on women in the IT profession. Information Technology and People, 15(2), 98-118.
233. Trauth, E. M. (Ed.). (2006). The encyclopedia of gender and information technology. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
234. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
235. Turner, S. V., Bernt, P. W., and Pecora, N. (2002, April). Why women choose information technology careers: Educational, social, and familial influences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
236. Ullman, E. (1997). Close to the machine: Technophilia and its discontents. San Francisco: City Lights Publishers.
237. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The U.S. Department of Education’s Gender Equity Expert Panel Exemplary and Promising Gender Equity Programs 2000. Retrieved July 14, 2005, from http://www. ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/gender.html
238. U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Women in the labor force in 2005. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-05.htm
239. Valian, V. (1997). Why So Slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
240. Valian, V., and Rabinowitz, V. (2004). Hunter College Gender Equity Project. New York: Hunter College Press.
241. Vispoel, W., and Fast, E. (2000). Response biases and their relation to sex differences in multiple domains of self-concept. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 79-97.
242. Vogt, C. (2002). An account of women’s progress in engineering: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8(3/4), 217-238.
243. Vogt, C., Hocevar, D., and Hagedorn, L. (2007). A social cognitive construct validation: Determining women and men’s success in engineering programs. Journal of Higher Education, in press.
244. Webster, J. (1996). Shaping women’s work: Gender, employment and information technology. London: Longman
245. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of emotion and motivation New York; Springer-Verlog. In P. Pintrich and D. Schunk, Motivation in education theory: Research and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
246. Wenzel, T. J. (2001). General chemistry: Expanding the goals beyond content and lab skills. In C. M. Musil (Ed.), Gender, science, and the undergraduate curriculum: Building two-way streets (pp. 29-46). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
247. Wigfield, A., and Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 1-46.
248. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., and Rodriquez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school contexts. Review of Research in Education, 23, 73-118.
249. Wilson, R. (2006, May 26). The chemistry between women and science. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(38), A10. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i38/38a01001.htm
250. Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 224-235.
251. Xie, Y., and Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
252. Young, B. J. (1999). Gender differences in student attitude toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 204-216.
253. Youngman, J. A., and Egelhoff, C. J. (2003). Best practices in recruiting and persistence of underrepresented minorities in engineering: A 2002 snapshot. Frontiers in Education, 2, 11-16.
254. Zare, R. N. (2006). Sex, lies, and Title IX. Chemical and Engineering News, 84(20), 46-49.
255. Zeldin, A. L., and Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 215-246.
256. Zittleman, K., and Sadker, D, (2002). Gender bias in teacher education texts. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 168-180.
257. Zuckerman, H., Cole, J. J., and Bruer, J. (1991). The outer circle: Women in the scientific community. New York: W. W. Norton.