Active Learning

Reorganizing STEMM courses to incorporate active learning exercises (i.e., having students work in groups, using clickers) generally improves learning among all students (Freeman et al., 2014; Handelsman et al., 2007), and is particularly beneficial for women in STEMM. As one example, in a traditional lecture-based biochemistry class there was an achievement gap between male and female students, and incorporating active learning exercises alleviated this grade disparity (Gross et al., 2015). Moreover, when women students took an introduction to computer science class with multiple group activities, African American, Hispanic, and White women persisted longer in the computer science major than those who took a traditional lecture-based introductory course (Latulipe et al., 2018). Thus, ensuring STEMM courses integrate active learning is one strategy to help retain women in STEMM majors throughout college. Research has also found that active learning can decrease the achievement gap between educationally and/or economically disadvantaged students (predominantly students of color) and advantaged students (predominantly White) in introductory biology courses (Haak et al., 2011).

Peer-led team learning (PLTL), where students work in small groups to solve course-related problems with a peer mentor (a student who has previously been successful in the course), is another active learning strategy that improves outcomes for women in STEMM (Dennehy and Dasgupta, 2017). Incorporating PLTL improves learning outcomes generally in STEMM classes (Streitwieser and Light, 2010; Wilson and Varma-Nelson, 2016), and is particularly beneficial for students that have been underrepresented in STEMM (i.e., women and underrepresented minorities; (Horwitz et al., 2009; Thiry and Hug, 2012). For example, when PLTL was implemented in introductory STEMM courses, it improved the completion rate of all students and specifically enhanced Latinx students’ completion rate (Hug et al., 2015; Thiry and Hug, 2012). Providing additional evidence, across eight universities, Horwitz and colleagues (2009) found that relative to female students who took a traditional lecture-based introduction to programming course, those who took a class with PLTL were more likely to enter, persist, and earn higher grades in computer science majors. PLTL also may encourage students to participate in helpful research experiences. In particular, Gates et al. (2015) examined the effectiveness of PLTL across primarily Hispanic serving institutions in introductory computer science classes, and found that PLTL not only improved students’ problem-solving skills, but also increased the likelihood of students assisting with computer science research (Gates et al., 2015).

Aside from the pedagogical benefits of active learning, working together on a task (via active learning exercises) can promote social connection with other students, engagement with a task, and belonging in the STEMM environment (Carr and Walton, 2014). The benefits of working in groups also has been demonstrated with pre-school children. Relative to pre-school children working on a STEMM task alone, children who worked in a group showed higher engagement and interest in the task (Master and Walton, 2013; Master et al., 2017). This research with pre-school children demonstrates that interventions to recruit women into STEMM majors and careers can be implemented early in the educational system. Indeed, one large-scale strategy to spark girls’ interest in STEMM disciplines where they are least represented (e.g., computer science, physics, engineering) is ensuring that girls are exposed to classes dispelling masculine STEMM stereotypes in the fields early in their educational development (Cheryan et al., 2017) (see Chapter 2 for a discussion of stereotypical associations between STEMM and masculinity).

Growth Mindset

With regard to STEMM ability, students can either have a growth mindset/incremental mindset (i.e., have beliefs that they can improve and get better) or a fixed/entity mindset (i.e., have beliefs that their ability is fixed and cannot change) (Dweck, 1995). Across many years of research, Dweck and colleagues have demonstrated that having a growth mindset increases academic performance among middle school, high school, four-year college students, and community college students (Dweck, 2006; Yeager and Dweck, 2012). For example, Chen and Pajares (2010) found that middle school students with a growth mindset (as opposed to a fixed mindset) had higher self-efficacy and learning-focused goals, and that middle school boys were more likely to have growth mindsets than girls. Indeed, the more female high school students believe they have the capacity to be successful after setbacks, the more likely they are to major in physics, engineering, mathematics, and computer science in college (Nix et al., 2015). Moreover, compared to those who have a fixed mindset, women college students with a growth mindset about math ability indicated higher belonging in math, reported more attraction to math careers, and earned higher grades in math classes (Good et al., 2012).

Researchers also have demonstrated the benefits of implementing short mindset interventions, which provide evidence that ability is not fixed and can improve. For instance, middle school students who took part in a workshop discussing how the brain is malleable and intelligence is not fixed had increased motivation in math and improved math grades relative to students who did not complete the workshop (Blackwell et al., 2007). This mindset intervention was effective because it encouraged students to value learning and effort, and respond more positively to challenges (Blackwell et al., 2007). In another example, female seventh grade students who were mentored by college students promoting a growth mindset performed better on standardized math tests compared to students who did not receive this growth-focused mentoring (Good et al., 2003). Thus, having female middle school students undergo a growth mindset intervention may be one way to recruit them into STEMM majors.

Aside from women students, mindset interventions help other students who traditionally have been underrepresented in STEMM. For example, relative to those in a no intervention control condition, Black college students who underwent a growth mindset intervention had higher academic motivation and grade point averages (Aronson et al., 2002). Specifically, Aronson et al. (2002) found that after three sessions of advocating the malleability of intelligence, African American study participants were found to have “created an enduring and beneficial change in their own attitudes about intelligence.” Further, this change resulted in improvements in their academic profile. As compared to control group participants, African American participants reported more enjoyment and value in their academics and received higher grades. While the intervention also positively impacted White students, the results were not as striking. The authors noted that over time, “African American students appeared to become more convinced of the expandability of intelligence, the White students’ attitude change did not persist” (Aronson et al., 2002).

In a larger-scale experiment involving 90 percent of first-year college students attending a public university, researchers found that compared to students in a control group, a mindset intervention increased the grades of Latinx students and reduced the achievement gap between Latinx and White students. Testing the effectiveness of this intervention across multiple academic environments (i.e., at a high school, public university, and selective private university), Yeager et al. (2016) also demonstrated that this growth mindset intervention improved the academic performance of first generation and underrepresented minority students relative to those who did not complete the intervention (Yeager et al., 2016). Taken together, this research provides compelling evidence that mindset interventions are scalable (i.e., can be implemented across multiple academic contexts) and have the potential to be beneficial for women with multiple negatively stereotyped identities in STEMM.

Communicate to Students the Societal Impact of STEMM

Steinberg and Diekman (2018) found that encouraging students to introspect on why (e.g., improving society) as opposed to how (i.e., running experiments) scientists conduct research in STEMM increases beliefs that STEMM careers broadly satisfy communal ambitions and enhance both male and female students’ positive attitudes toward those careers. Illuminating one such intervention, STEMM classes can incorporate helping-focused projects to encourage beliefs that STEMM fields value communal aims (Belanger et al., 2017). Both male and female students are more likely to believe that engineering classes that have a service learning component (i.e., during which students use what they learn in class to help their local communities) fulfill communal goals and in turn are more interested in taking these classes (Belanger et al., 2017). Incorporating service learning projects in STEMM classes, therefore, helps promote perceptions that STEMM fields advance communal goals, which can serve to recruit women into STEMM classes. In another study, explicitly describing biomedical research as aiming to improve lives sparked students’ motivation, among both women and men, to conduct biomedical research (Brown et al., 2015). Similarly, when class lectures are structured to emphasize how STEMM research and careers help others, female first year college students believed that STEMM careers advance communal goals and expressed more interest in these careers (Fuesting and Diekman, 2017).

Educators can also personally emphasize how their work in a STEMM field satisfies their communal motives (Chen and Pajares, 2010; Dweck, 2006; Emerson and Murphy, 2015; Good et al., 2012; Yeager and Dweck, 2012). As one example, watching women scientists present on the altruistic aspects of their research increases adolescent girls’ interest in science (Weisgram and Bigler, 2006). Learning about how a scientist’s daily tasks involve working with and helping others (as opposed to working alone) also encourages women college students’ attraction to STEMM fields (Diekman et al., 2011). Finally, women STEMM majors report being more interested in working with a faculty mentor who values communal goals compared to a mentor who values agentic goals (Fuesting and Diekman, 2017). Taken together, this research provides compelling evidence that presenting STEMM fields (including biomedical sciences and computer science) as communal enhances interest in STEMM and encourages recruitment of women in STEMM. It is noteworthy that many of these interventions enhanced interest in STEMM among both women and men (Brown, 2015; Steinberg and Diekman, 2018), suggesting that these strategies benefit any student who values helping others and do not inadvertently dissuade men from entering STEMM careers.

STEMM instructor characteristics and instructional features. Changing the structure of STEMM classes requires the involvement and commitment of STEMM instructors, and some may not feel comfortable or know how to incorporate techniques that can support active learning or growth mindset in their courses. To address this issue, STEMM education researchers have developed successful training and workshops that can teach instructors about these classroom techniques. For example, the National Academies Summer Institute for Undergraduate Education is a successful weeklong workshop, during which STEMM instructors learn how to develop and effectively incorporate active learning into their courses (Pfund et al., 2009). Moreover bias literacy interventions, which have the potential to reduce hostility towards women in STEMM by enhancing knowledge of sexism and discrimination toward women and changing individual level attitudes, have been successfully incorporated into these summer institutes (Moss-Racusin et al., 2016). The workshop involved the presentation of empirical evidence regarding gender bias, in an effort to resonate with these science faculty, and it communicated that increasing scientific diversity is part of everyone’s responsibility. Two weeks after the intervention, faculty participants demonstrated not only increased awareness of gender bias and the importance of scientific diversity, but also a greater approach orientation toward diversity. In other words, they were more inclined to engage proactively in positive diversity behaviors and they were less likely to engage in avoidant behavior (Moss-Racusin et al., 2016). Multiple-day workshops for STEMM educators have the ability not only to increase active learning, but also to decrease harmful gender biases; thus, such trainings can help recruit and retain women in STEMM majors (Moss-Racusin et al., 2016; Pfund et al., 2009).

Instructor connections with students are also a critical predictor of whether women will feel welcome and will be successful in STEMM classes. Students generally are more engaged in active learning and earn higher grades in STEMM classes when they trust their instructor (i.e., believe their instructor cares about and accepts them) (Cavanagh et al., 2018). That said, even though encouraging trust and good relationships with students promotes engagement, it is important that STEMM faculty still work to challenge students. Compared to those with a growth mindset, math instructors with a fixed mindset are more likely to employ comfort strategies (e.g., assigning less work) for students with low math ability (Rattan et al., 2012). Comforting rather than challenging students leads students to believe that their instructors have low expectations for their success in math and harms their math motivation (Rattan et al., 2012).

A recent large-scale study further demonstrated the benefits of instructors with growth mindsets, and examined the performance of students across 634 STEMM courses (Canning et al., 2019). Relative to students who took classes with an instructor who had a fixed mindset, those who took classes with an instructor with a growth mindset were more likely to believe the instructor emphasized learning and development, were more motivated to do their best work, and, importantly, earned higher grades in the course. Moreover, the achievement gap between White and underrepresented minority students was twice as large in classes with fixed mindset instructors than in classes with growth mindset instructors (Canning et al., 2019).

Across another series of studies, Fuesting et al. (2019) found that when students believed their STEMM instructors have a growth mindset compared to a fixed mindset, they are more likely to believe that STEMM environments afford communal goals, which ultimately relates to higher interest in STEMM majors and careers. Finally, relative to those with a fixed mindset, instructors with a growth mindset also are more likely to adopt active learning exercises in their courses (Aragón et al., 2018), and growth mindset interventions are less effective in classes when teachers have a fixed rather than a growth mindset (Schmidt, 2015). Taken together, multiple studies suggest that training STEMM instructors to have a growth mindset will improve the performance of all students (not just women), and specifically will help recruit female students from STEMM classes into STEMM majors and careers.

A 2020 report by the National Task Force to Elevate African American Representation in Physics and Astronomy (TEAM-UP), which examined the reasons for the persistent underrepresentation of African Americans in these fields (AIP, 2020), also found that the characteristics of faculty influenced recruitment and retention. Specifically, the task force found that faculty behavior could influence the development of “physics identity,” defined as “how one sees oneself with respect to physics as a profession.” The task force noted that how students perceive themselves with respect to physics is predictive of achievement and retention in the field and identified faculty encouragement, recognition, and representation as key aspects of fostering physics identity among students. The task force recommended that to build physics identity, departments should be strategic in determining whether departmental activities are supportive of physics identity and assess the efficacy of activities and the diversity of faculty across race/ethnicity/gender and other social identities. The task force also found that African American student retention in physics improved when faculty “recognize and respond to students as unique individuals with a wide range of intersecting social identities and acknowledge their experiences of being minoritized in physics and astronomy department may impact their academic performance.” Other recommendations to address underrepresentation of African Americans in physics, included ensuring that teaching, mentoring, and advising include a focus on African American student success (AIP, 2020).

Instructors also play an important role in retention of post-traditional students, who make up the majority of students in this country (see Box 3-1 for more information). Packard and Jeffers (2013) demonstrated that women from community colleges are more likely to persist in STEMM fields if they are given intentional and proactive academic advising from an individual who has knowledge of particular STEMM fields and STEMM transfer possibilities (Packard and Jeffers, 2013). This advising can help to alleviate confusion in signing up for coursework and in selecting a major (Packard et al., 2012). It may be helpful if faculty and transfer advisors work together to share this information, as many community college women do not have extended time to navigate campuses to receive transfer and career advice (Wang et al., 2017). In a study examining women’s experiences in STEMM community college transfer pathways, Packard et al. (2011) identified several facilitators to women’s success, including inspirational professors, effective transfer advising, and academic resources. Students reported that finding a helpful professor or advisor boosted student belongingness and contributed to their persistence in STEMM.

BOX 3-1

The Importance of Considering Post-Traditional Students.

Group Composition

The group composition of classes or small activity groups in class (for female students), and working groups (for female scientists) may also play an important role in recruiting and retaining women in STEMM. For instance, female students perform worse on a math test when they are in a setting with majority male students as opposed to majority female students (Inzlicht and Ben-Zeev, 2000). Women students anticipate less belonging and are less interested in attending a conference that has majority male students versus gender parity (Murphy et al., 2010). Women established in STEMM also anticipate less belonging and are less interested in an academic conference when nearly all of the attendees are men (Richman et al., 2011), and women working in STEMM environments where they are outnumbered by men experience the highest level of gender identity threat² compared to men and to women who are not outnumbered by men (van Veelen et al., 2019).

Although women may benefit generally from active learning, being in women-majority activity groups may create the most welcoming and inspiring STEMM classroom environments (Springer et al., 1999). For example, Springer, Stanne, and Donnovan (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in STEMM courses and found that this is an effective approach for promoting greater academic achievement, improving attitudes, and increasing persistence for women (Springer et al., 1999). The authors noted that the positive effect of small-group learning on students’ achievement was significantly greater for groups composed “primarily or exclusively of African Americans and Latinas/os (compared with predominantly White and relatively heterogeneous groups).” In a separate study, Dasgupta et al. (2015) found that students were more likely to participate and feel less anxious in women majority groups compared to male majority groups in an engineering class. The women students in the women majority groups also indicated higher STEMM career aspirations and confidence (Dasgupta et al., 2015). Beyond gender, related work has demonstrated that underrepresented minority students in STEMM also benefit from environments with other underrepresented minority students (Gates et al., 2011; Hurtado et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2019). Hurtado et al. (2007), for example, found that among first year underrepresented minority college students in the sciences, several factors positively and significantly shaped their sense of belonging. These included interacting with a graduate student or teaching assistant, receiving advice from a junior or senior, receiving academic advice from a freshman, and interacting with peers of diverse racial backgrounds. Similarly, the authors noted that significant positive influence of cross-racial interactions on underrepresented minority students’ sense of belonging further supports the benefits of diversity on college campuses.

When it is not possible to have women majority groups, it also may be helpful to address the biases of the male students in STEMM classes. Women and underrepresented minority STEMM majors report facing unwelcoming environments in their STEMM class from fellow students (Hurtado et al., 2007; Robnett and Thoman, 2017; Steele et al., 2002). Particularly relevant to group activities, Meadows and Sekaquaptewa (2013) found that when working in groups in engineering courses, male students tended to take on active roles (e.g., talk more, present group work), whereas women tended to be in technical roles (e.g., note takers). Thus, bias literacy interventions may not only be beneficial when implemented among STEMM faculty, but may also promote more inclusive STEMM classroom environments when targeted toward students in those classes (Becker and Swim, 2011, 2012; Kilmartin et al., 2015). As one example of the benefits of classroom bias literacy interventions, in an experiment by Bennett and Sekaquaptewa (2014), introduction to engineering courses were randomly assigned to receive presentation on the importance of egalitarian social norms (i.e., intervention classes) or receive no presentation (i.e., control classes). Relative to those in the control classes, White male students who underwent the intervention at the beginning of the course, reported valuing diversity more and higher intentions to speak out against discrimination (Bennett and Sekaquaptewa, 2014). In addition, regardless of receiving the intervention, racial/ethnic minority males did not differ on their attitudes toward diversity in engineering. The authors attributed this finding to the limited sample size or the fact that this population’s attitudes may have already been more positive compared to White males.

Another successful intervention for students employed videos to demonstrate equitable classroom interactions (Lewis et al., 2019). Specifically, researchers assigned STEMM majors to watch a video of mixed gender groups conforming to gender stereotypes (i.e., male students speaking more than female students), or acting nonstereotypically (i.e., female students talking more than male students). The STEMM majors then completed a group task, modeled after typical STEMM classroom activities. In the interventions group, female and male students spoke equal amounts, whereas in the nonintervention teams, male students spoke more than female students (as revealed from both self-report data and video footage of group interactions) (Lewis et al., 2019).