This topic area focuses on programs, courses, and other interventions designed to foster interest and success among girls and women in STEM fields. CLEAR identified causal research that examined the effectiveness of these interventions and reviewed the studies against the causal guidelines.
Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math (STEM)
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1994 - 2014.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 44
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of “stereotype threat priming” on students’ grades in postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses and on self-…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Accelerate New Mexico Math Camp on outcomes for community college students, including women and minority students traditionally…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Supplemental Instruction in college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses on the course grades earned at San Francisco…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of providing information to parents about the importance of STEM on their children’s decisions to enroll in advanced high school math and science…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This paper described the ADVANCE IT-Catalyst study that examined the barriers facing female STEM faculty members at six Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) colleges, compared with men at RIT and…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of New York City (NYC) STEM high schools on math and science test-taking behavior and scores. The study used regression analyses to compare outcomes…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
In a study performed at a public coeducational middle school during the 2007–2008 school year, the author sought to determine whether students in single-sex science classes learned “the same science…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to examine factors that affect motivation to pursue a computer and information sciences (CIS) degree, with the intention of informing strategies to increase the number of…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of alleviating women’s stereotype threat—that is, the idea that men outperform women in mathematics—on women’s subsequent performance on a difficult…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study determined the impact of a four-week series of civil engineering workshops on Australian middle school girls’ perceptions of engineers and the engineering profession. The goal of the…
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.