Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An analysis of the role of peers in supporting female students’ choices in science subjects

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This exploratory study investigated the role and importance of peers in providing personal and academic support for Year 11 female students, enrolled in physics and biology. While these areas of support had been identified in earlier research by Holland and Eisenhart (1981), this study attempted to investigate further their importance within an Australian context. Questionnaires, completed by one hundred female students, were analysed using Principal Components Analysis and MANOVA. The statistical analysis found no significant differences between the six relevant factors and science subjects, however, significant differences emerged in relation to schools and particular factors. Subsequently, six interviews were conducted with selected students to elaborate upon the statistical differences that emerged from these results. The interviews corroborated the findings of the quantitative analysis and provided explanations for these differences. Overall, the results of this study suggest that while the supportive role provided by peers is similar regardless of the science subject undertaken by a female student this role varies between schools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1991).Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America. A nationwide poll to assess self-esteem, educational experiences, interest in mathematics and science, and career aspirations of girls an boys ages 9–15. Washington: AAUW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A., & Astin, H. (1992).Undergraduate science education: The impact of different College environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences. Final report from the Higher Education Research Institute, California University, LA.

  • Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (1994).Subject choice in years 11 and 12. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, C., & Schnorr, D. (1991).Gender equity: Educational problems and possibilities for female students. An opinion paper from the George Mason University, Graduate School of Education, Fairfax, VA.

  • Bartholomew, C., & Schnorr, D. (1994). Gender equity: Suggestions for broadening career options of female students.The School Counselor, 41, 245–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. (1988). Girls in science. In S. Middleton (Ed.),Women and education in Aotearoa (pp. 153–160). Wellington: Allen Unwin Port Nicholson Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, E., & Hazel, E. (1992).Male and female attitudes as a barrier. Discussion paper 5 from the Women in Science and Technology in Australia. Document used in the UO WISTA survey, Department of Education, University of Queensland.

  • Campbell, J., & Connolly, C. (1984, April).Impact of ethnicity on math and science among the gifted. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Cohen, J. (1983).Peer influence on college aspirations with initial aspirations controlled. American Sociological Association, October, 4–29.

  • Dawson, C., & O’Connor, P. (1991). Gender differences when choosing school subjects: Parental push and career pull. Some tentative hypotheses.Research in Science Education, 21, 65–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Laeter, J., Malone, J., & Dekkers, J. (1989). Female science enrolment trends in Australian senior secondary schools.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 35(3), 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, T., & Rallis, S. (1991). Factors and influences on high school students’ career choices.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(4), 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doenau, S. (1987).Are teachers fair to girls? How do teachers interact with girls and boys in their classrooms? Australia: Edvance Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O., Haller, A., & Portes, A. (1968). Peer influences on aspirations: A reinterpretation.The American Journal of Sociology, 74, 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbutt, D. (1981). Science options in a girls’ grammar school. In A. Kelly (Ed.),The missing half: Girls and science education (pp. 113–122). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gierl, M. (1994).A student’s perspective on the intrinsic characteristics of the single-sex physics class. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

  • Head, J. (1987). A model to link personality characteristics to a preference for science. In A. Kelly (Ed.),Science for girls? (pp. 18–23). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995).Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, G. (1989). Creating a gender-inclusive science education.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 35(3), 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, D., & Eisenhart, M. (1981).Women’s peer groups and choices of careers. Final report, Policy and Research Planning Group, North Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeon, K., & Ristow, R. (1990). Perceptions of teachers of the gifted toward characteristic behaviours of gifted females in rural schools. In S. Bailey, E. Braggett, & M. Robinson (Eds.),The challenge of excellence: A vision splendid (pp. 131–136). Melbourne: Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. (1991). Gender differences in science competitions.Science Education, 75(2), 159–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G., & Wheatley, J. (1988). Factors influencing the entry of women into science and related fields.Science Education, 72, 861–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 861–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J., & Young, D. (1995). Perceptions of the relevance of mathematics and science: An Australian study.Research in Science Education, 25(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J., Porter, A., & Young, D. (1996). Perceptions of the relevance of mathematics and science: Further analysis of an Australian longitudinal study.Research in Science Education, 26(4), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, J. (1987). Images of science: The physicist and the cowboy. In B. Fraser, & G. Giddings (Eds.),Gender issues in science education (pp. 1–9). Perth: Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, J. (1988). Gender and science education 2. In P. Fensham (Ed.),Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 249–265). London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, J., Parker, L., Rennie, L., & Riley, D. (1993). Gender differences in science education: Building a model.Educational Psychologist, 28(4), 379–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. (1978).Girls and science: An international study of sex differences in school achievement (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IEA Monograph Studies 9). Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. (Ed.) (1981).The missing half: Girls and science education. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. (1985).Handbook for achieving sex equity through education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, B., & Short, E. (1991). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent females.Roeper Review, 13(3), 118–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994).Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical guide. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, D., & McInerney, V. (1994).Educational psychology: Constructing learning. Australia: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, P. (1988). The impact of sex-role stereotyping on human development.Monograph 3(1), Ohio State University, Colombus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod, M. (1981). Factors differentially affecting the science subject preferences, choices and attitudes of girls and boys. In A. Kelly (Ed.),The missing half: Girls and science education (pp. 100–112). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L., & Rennie, L. (1986). Sex-stereotyped attitudes about science: Can they be changed?European Journal of Science Education, 8, 173–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltz, W. (1990). Can girls+science-stereotypes=success?Science Teacher, 59(9), 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picou, J., & Carter, T. (1976). Significant-other influence and aspirations.Sociology of Education, 49, 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L., & Parker, L. (1993). Assessment of physics: Further exploration of the implications of item context.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 39(4), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L., Parker, L., & Hutchinson, P. (1985).The effect of inservice training on teacher attitudes and primary school science clssroom climate. Research report No. 12. Perth: Department of Education, University of Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddell, S. (1992).Gender and the politics of the curriculum. London: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmuck, R. (1977). Peer groups as settings for learning.Theory into Practice, 16, 272–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account.Science Education, 79(4), 437–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, S., & Imsen, G. (1988). Gender in science education 1. In P. Fensham (Ed.),Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 218–248). London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleet, R., & Stern, W. (1980). Student selection of science subjects and careers.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 26(3), 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanworth, M. (1987). Girls on the margin: A study of gender divisions in the classroom. In G. Weiner, & M. Arnot (Eds.),Gender under scrutiny (pp. 198–212). London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B., & Fudell, L. (1989).Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Rowe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. (1991). Science-relatedness and gender-appropriateness of careers: Some pupil perceptions.Research in Science and Technological Education, 9(2), 245–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Zanden, J., & Pace, A. (1984).Educational psychology in theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vockell, E., & Lobonc, S. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping by high school females in science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(3), 209–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiersma, W. (1991).Research methods in education: An introduction (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., Stocking, V., & Goldstein, D. (1993, February).Gender differences in course selection criteria: Academically talented students in an intensive summer program. Paper presented at the Third Annual Esther Katz Rosen Symposium on the Psychological Development of Gifted Children, Kansas.

  • Woolnough, J., & Cameron, R. (1991). Girls, boys and conceptual physics: An evaluation of a senior secondary physics course.Science Education, 21, 337–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. (1991).Gender differences in science achievement: Secondary analysis of data from the Second International Science Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Science and Mathematics Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D., & Fraser, B. (1994). Gender differences in science achievement: Do school effects make a difference?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 857–871.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum Studies, University of New England, 2351, Armidale, NSW

    Debra Panizzon & Lesley Levins

Authors
  1. Debra Panizzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lesley Levins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debra Panizzon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Panizzon, D., Levins, L. An analysis of the role of peers in supporting female students’ choices in science subjects. Research in Science Education 27, 251–270 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461320

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461320

Keywords

Search

Navigation