Gender-Math Stereotype, Biased Self-Assessment, and Aspiration in STEM Careers: The Gender Gap among Early Adolescents in China

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Degree type

Discipline

Subject

Chinese Education Panel Survey (CEPS)
STEM education
gender gap
stereotypes
careers
self evaluation
mathematics
Demography, Population, and Ecology
Gender and Sexuality
Inequality and Stratification
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Sociology

Funder

Grant number

License

Copyright date

Distributor

Related resources

Author

Contributor

Abstract

This article explores the paradox between the closing gender gap in math performance and the persistent gender gap in STEM aspiration using data from the Chinese Education Panel Survey (CEPS). Extending the stereotype threat literature, this article includes measures of gender-math stereotypes from students, parents, and peers, and offers an analysis to address the limitations of previous studies. Findings indicate that gender-math stereotypes are associated with a gender gap in students’ self-assessment in math-learning competency, even after controlling for math performance; this self-assessment is further associated with students’ aspiration in science and engineering careers. Moreover, the effect of math self-assessment on science and engineering aspiration is stronger among girls than boys. However, even after controlling for math self-assessment and gender-math stereotype, boys are still more likely to aspire to careers in science and engineering than girls. This article discusses policy implications of the findings.

Advisor

Date Range for Data Collection (Start Date)

Date Range for Data Collection (End Date)

Digital Object Identifier

Series name and number

Publication date

2018-08-24

Volume number

Issue number

Publisher

Publisher DOI

relationships.isJournalIssueOf

Comments

This paper was published in the following journal: Liu, Ran. 2018. Gender-Math Stereotype, Biased Self-Assessment, and Aspiration in STEM Careers: The Gender Gap among Early Adolescents in China." Comparative Education Review 62(4):522-541. https://doi.org/10.1086/699565.

Recommended citation

Collection