Topic: Gender Differences in Grade 12 Students’ Engagement in STEM Subjects: A Case Study of One Specialized School in South Kazakhstan

School engagement is considered vital for students’ motivation and their academic performance. However, a significant decline in student engagement has been observed in most countries across the globe, especially in the field of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). Scholars are concerned because with such an attitude to schooling, students will not obtain the capabilities and skills that are necessary to meet the demands of the job market (Fredricks et al., 2004). Several empirical studies suggest numerous individual and contextual factors, influencing student engagement in STEM, with gender and age being the most significant issues affecting school engagement (Martin, 2007; Nako, 2015). Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how student engagement is gendered because a deeper understanding of this would help identify ways of mitigating student alienation and dissatisfaction with school in general and STEM in particular, since women are underrepresented in STEM occupations around the world. A plethora of studies on the relationship between student engagement and gender have found that female students are more engaged than male students, especially in the field of languages (e.g. Amir, Saleha, Jelas, Ahmad, & Hutkemri, 2014; Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder, 2001; King, 2016; Lietaert, Roorda, Laevers, Verschueren, & De Fraine, 2015). Although girls engage more than boys, when it comes to STEM, their engagement drops relative to boys (Martinez & Guzman, 2013; Stoet & Geary, 2018).

Gender stereotypes such as considering the role of women as related to housework and family have been found during a gender assessment study in Kazakhstan by the Asian Development Bank [ADB] (2018). This suggests the presence of gendered career choices at the tertiary level, especially in STEM because it is seen as a male-dominated area. That is why the current study examines different perspectives on gender disparities in student engagement at STEM subjects of Grade 12 students in depth because student engagement especially in the high school will have greater implications in the choice of students’ future profession.

The purpose of the study is to explore the ways gender differences are played out in school engagement of Year 12 students in STEM subjects in Kazakhstan. Since enhancing women’s participation in STEM is a policy priority in Kazakhstan, identifying what supports the engagement of girls and boys in STEM and what weakens it could potentially identify strategies at different levels and for different actors to enhance the recruitment of both men and women in STEM subjects.

This study is focused on exploring the gendered nature of student engagement in STEM, and aims to answer three research questions:

1. In what ways does student engagement in STEM differ between boys and girls?

2. What reasons can explain gender differences in student engagement in STEM if they emerge?

3. What strategies might enhance the engagement of students, both girls and boys, in STEM?

Theoretically, my research is informed by post-structuralism, which identifies theories about the relationships between people and their practice, and rejects the existence of absolute truth about the world (Belsey, 2013). I believe that those relations describe different aspects of social reality and help us recognize and make sense of the construction of reality (that is, how school engagement differs by gender in STEM subjects in the current study), not reality itself. My post-structuralist orientations imply that my reading and review of the literature seek to understand student engagement in STEM as social practice using different perspectives on the topic.

Research Design: The study is an instrumental case study of one school for gifted students in south Kazakhstan to generate theoretical ideas about the gendered nature of student engagement in STEM subjects. An instrumental case study examines a particular case in order to discern a theory or issue and determine the factors that may have contributed to that phenomenon (Stake, 1994). Therefore, this approach is justified in my research because it will enable me to explore the chosen phenomenon in depth within the real-life context of one school in south Kazakhstan. Sampling procedures: This study used a purposeful sampling strategy to select 12 students in Year 12, who are 18 years of age or older. Purposeful sampling enabled me to select “information-rich cases” for in-depth study, as from such cases researchers “can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry” and gain a holistic understanding of the case (Patton, 2002, p. 273). Since the study was aimed at exploring how student engagement in STEM differs between boys and girls, gender and major choice were the main criteria for the sample selection. The sample comprised 12 students – six boys and six girls in Year 12. This grade has been selected because it is at this level students start actively making up their mind or are already certain about their future courses and careers. Data collection tools: The main data collection instrument comprised focus group discussion (FGD) with Year 12 students. The first FGD captured the views of physics students, while the second one reflected the views of biology students. An equal number of girls and boys participated in each FGD, as the study focused on gender differences in student engagement. FGDs are advantageous “when the interaction among interviewees will likely yield the best information, when interviewees are similar to and cooperative with each other or when individuals are hesitant to provide information in any type of interview” (Creswell, 2012, p. 218). Data analysis: Both FGDs were transcribed verbatim in order not to miss any valuable data and to go back to the data and reflect on them during the analysis. All the participants were assigned pseudonyms to protect their personal information. I manually developed transcripts because they are used for data analysis and as evidence of the author’s analytic claims. About 40 codes were identified, which were subsequently organized into five themes.

Findings: The findings revealed that student engagement in STEM is not a fixed, but a fluid state that varies depending on several factors including gender. It appeared that the choice of STEM careers was highly gendered. Participants mentioned the influence of social environment on students’ choice, which is very common in the Kazakhstani context. Girls are usually not allowed to pursue careers in STEM fields by their family; as a result, most of female students abandon STEM despite their abilities because many families think that certain professions are not appropriate for girls. Society frames STEM as masculine subjects, attaching a greater value to male subjects. This suggests that gendered pattern in choosing STEM is not related to biological differences between men and women but depends on how social environment constructs gender norms as to whether the profession is masculine or feminine. Certain student norms of behavior, including solving problems and adhering to classroom rules were found highly gendered. Societal norms on gender, gendered classroom norms, and the future utility of STEM can explain gender differences in student engagement. However, students themselves did not report explicit gender differences in the classroom. The findings also indicate that applying practical work, solving problems, group work and having competitions might enhance the engagement of both girls and boys in STEM subjects.

1) ADB (Asian Development Bank). (2018). Kazakhstan Country Gender Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS179181 2) Almukhambetova, A., & Kuzhabekova, A. (2020). Factors affecting the decision of female students to enroll in undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics majors in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Science Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1742948 3) Amir, R., Saleha, A., Jelas, Z. M., Ahmad, A. R., & Hutkemri, Z. (2014). Students’ engagement by age and gender: A cross-sectional study in Malaysia. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 21(10), 1886-1892. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.21.10.85168 4) Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2YZS5Yc 5) Brown, M., Brown, P., & Bibby, T. (2007). “I would rather die”: Attitudes of 16-year-olds towards their future participation in mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 3-18. 6) Chan, A. K. W., & Cheung, A. K. L. (2018). Gender differences in choosing STEM subjects at secondary school and university in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Women’s Foundation. 7) Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13), 1-10. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2PyTgbF 8) Du, X. Y. (2006). Gendered practices of constructing an engineering identity in a problem-based learning environment. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790500430185. 9) Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M.A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002 10) Mendick, H. (2005a). A beautiful myth? The gendering of being/doing ‘good at maths’. Gender and Education, 17(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954025042000301465 11) Mendick, H. (2005b). Mathematical stories: Why do more boys than girls choose to study mathematics at AS-level in England? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000294192 12) Mendick, H. (2013). Choosing subjects: Sociological approaches to young women’s subject choices. In R. Brooks, M. McCormack, & K. Bhopal (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in the Sociology of Education (pp. 202-217). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 13) OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2014). Reviews of national policies for education: Secondary education in Kazakhstan. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205208-en 14) OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2014). Reviews of national policies for education: Secondary education in Kazakhstan. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205208-en