Establishing a STEM Pipeline: Trends in Male and Female Enrollment and Performance in Higher Level Secondary STEM Courses

  • Liz Bergeron
  • Melissa Gordon


The purpose of this study was to understand enrollment and performance differences between male and females in higher level secondary STEM courses. This study analyzes performance and enrollment of 355,688 secondary students in higher level STEM courses. This research also enabled an exploration of country level differences. The enrollment research questions are evaluated using chi-square tests, frequency tables, and histograms. Performance research questions are analyzed with hierarchical linear regression and ANOVA with post hocs and Cohen’s d effect size measures. Results suggest that females enroll much less frequently in higher level secondary STEM courses. Females and males perform equally well.


Competition Course selection Gender gap Higher level courses HLM STEM 

Supplementary material

10763_2015_9693_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (59 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 59 kb)


  1. Bieri-Buschor, C., Berweger, S., Keck-Frei, A. & Kappler, C. (2014). Majoring in STEM—What accounts for women’s career decision making? A mixed methods study. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 167–176. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2013.788989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brincks, A. (April 14, 2012). Centering decisions in three-level, cross-sectional, contextual models. Annual meeting. Lecture conducted from AERA, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  4. Chinn, S. (2000). A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 19(22), 3127–3131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Enders, C. K. & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in a cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenwood, P. & Nukulin, M. (1996). A guide to chi-squared testing. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911–922. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halpern, D., Aronson, J., Reimer, N., Simpkins, S., Star, J., & Wentzel, K. (2007). Encouraging girls in math and science: IES practice guide (NCER 2007–2003). Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available:
  10. Hill, C., Corbet, C. & Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women (AAUW).Google Scholar
  11. Howie, S. & Plomp, T. (2008). Narrowing the gap? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34(2), 53–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hyde, J. & Mertz, J. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 8,801–8,807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ing, M. (2014). Gender differences in the influence of early perceived parental support on student mathematics and science achievement and stem career attainment. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1221–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO). (2012). Handbook of procedures for the diploma programme. Geneva, Switzerland: IBO.Google Scholar
  16. Lomax, R. (2007). Multiple comparison procedures. In Statistical concepts: A second course (3rd ed., pp. 27–51). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Ma, D. X., Ma, L. & Bradley, K. (2008). Using multilevel modeling to investigate school effects. In A. Connell & D. B. McCoach (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data (pp. 59–110). Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar
  18. Nagy, G., Garrett, J., Trautwein, U., Cortina, K. S., Baumert, J. & Eccles, J. S. (2008). Gendered high school course selection as a precursor of gendered careers: The mediating role of self-concept and intrinsic value. In H. M. G. Watt & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Gender and occupational outcomes. Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences (pp. 115–143). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., Baumert, J., Koller, O. & Garret, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2006). Science and engineering indicators, (Volume 1). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. NSB 06-01.Google Scholar
  21. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. NSB 10-33. Google Scholar
  22. Niederle, M. & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Shea, M., Heilbronner, N. N. & Reis, S. M. (2010). Characteristics of academically talented women who achieve at high levels on the scholastic achievement test-mathematics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(2), 234–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Sarkisian, N. (2013). Hierarchical linear modeling [PDF document]. Retrieved from
  26. Smith, E. & Gorard, S. (2011). Is there a shortage of scientists? A re-analysis of supply for the UK. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Snijders, T. & Bosker, R. (2012). An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Sun, S., Pan, W. & Wang, L. (2010). A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education and psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 989–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson, R. & Bolin, G. (2011). Indicators of success in STEM majors: A cohort study. Journal of College Admission, 212, 18–24.Google Scholar
  30. Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M. & Hanson, M. (2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 243–270.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Education (2009). Student who study science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in post secondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin-La CrosseLa CrosseUSA
  2. 2.International Baccalaureate OrganizationBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations