The barriers and facilitators affecting female participation and performance in STEM-related TVET.

 

In the Cracking the Code report, focus was placed on the participation and performance of girls and women in STEM education in general. The analytical framework used provided a good point of departure; however, in the current report, we specifically focus on STEM-related TVET, which requires an adaptation of the analytical framework. The nature of TVET, with its attention to practical skills, ensures that TVET generally works relatively close to the labour market. Throughout the world, we see a strong focus on practical learning in TVET programmes, for example through internship programmes. The transfer to the labour market, which was not taken into account in the Cracking the Code report, is therefore an important focus in the light of this report. Building further on the analytical framework of the Cracking the Code report, new literature and the country case studies for this report, a new and useful analytical framework can be drawn. Figure 9 provides an overview of this analytical framework, in which gender parity in STEM-related TVET is considered at different levels: the personal level (individual learner and family/peers), the institutional level (TVET institutions and labour market organizations), and the societal level (society). In the sections that follow, the key messages of the different levels of the analytical framework will be considered for TVET, merging evidence from existing literature and from the case study countries. Then, the analytical framework presented in Figure 9 will be adjusted based on the TVET-specific information provided in this chapter.

- Biological factors - 

Research shows that biological factors are no indication for performance in STEM nor in other fields of study. In her research, Beking analysed the performance of male and female participants for visual and language assignments and showed there are no gender differences in performance. Even though a difference between girls and boys was visible at the brain level, this had no influence on their performance. In other words, even if there is a ‘biological difference’, this would not have an effect on performance in STEM.

In conclusion, biological differences at the brain level between boys and girls have no effect on ability or performance in STEM subjects. In conclusion, biological differences on the brain-level between boys and girls have no effects on ability or performance in STEM subjects. 

- Psychological factors  -

On the personal level, psychological factors influence the behaviour of the individual learner. These psychological factors are thought to reinforce gendered identities and have an effect on the differences between girls and boys in their interest and abilities in STEM subjects. Even though more research is needed, data from the country case studies suggest that psychological factors are more present and form a greater barrier for girls and women in TVET than in any other type of education. One possible reason for this is the fact that in TVET there are in general fewer female role models than in other types of education. Female TVET students often do not know any role models working in STEM professions who could be an example for them. A second but related reason is the general idea that working conditions in STEM-related TVET careers are more harsh and femaleunfriendly (outdoor, physically challenging). The country case studies show perceptions of the ‘dirty’ and ‘unfeminine’ nature of some occupations that require manual work and the effects that these perceptions have on the development of gendered identities and aspirations, particularly during puberty. The country case study from Australia suggests that continued exposure to long-held stereotypes of the STEM profession as ‘male-oriented, obsessive and socially isolated’ can create a loss of interest and career aspirations in these fields for girls. In this respect, there is some evidence from Germany and elsewhere that young girls tend to choose a profession that is supposed to correspond to their ideas about gender and that these beliefs form in (pre-) puberty. Misinformation about the value of STEM and the opportunities that it presents, as well as the general negative attitude towards TVET occupations, seem to impact the choices of students and drive them towards gender stereotypical specialities. The specificities related to STEM-related TVET that were raised in the country reports are worthy of further exploration. Further research into the relationship between beliefs about physical strength differences that act as a barrier to girls gaining interest in STEM-related occupations and the actual physical demands required by different occupations would be valuable. Linked to this would be research into the effects of these kinds of widely held beliefs on self-perception, sense of self-efficacy, and interest and engagement of girls and women in STEM-related subjects that appear to be more physically demanding. Finally, as suggested in the previous section, there is scope for research into the relative performance of girls and boys in STEM-related TVET subjects. For example, in the Netherlands, girls have significantly lower self-esteem regarding beta subjects than boys. However, research concerning the relative performance of boys and girls in technical subjects (in this case mathematics) shows that they perform approximately the same. This kind of information might prove potentially valuable for challenging gender-based stereotypes among learners, TVET educators and parents.