View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Gender Differences among Students Undertaking iSTEM Projects in Multidisciplinary vs Unidisciplinary STEM Classrooms in Government vs Nongovermnment Schools: Classroom Emotional Climate and Attitudes

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Gender Differences among Students Undertaking iSTEM Projects in Multidisciplinary vs Unidisciplinary STEM Classrooms in Government vs Nongovermnment Schools: Classroom Emotional Climate and Attitudes
Language: English
Authors: McLure, Felicity I., Koul, Rekha B., Fraser, Barry J. (ORCID 0000-0003-1026-9495)
Source: Learning Environments Research. Oct 2022 25(3):917-937.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Gender Differences, Integrated Curriculum, STEM Education, Interdisciplinary Approach, Student Attitudes, Classroom Environment, Coeducation, Public Schools, Private Schools, Secondary School Students, Psychological Patterns
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-021-09392-9
ISSN: 1387-1579
1573-1855
Abstract: In response to the leaky STEM pipeline, particularly for girls, many schools have introduced integrated STEM (iSTEM) programs to enable students to solve problems using skills from each STEM area and hopefully enhance their interest in continuing with STEM subjects in senior-high school and university. We investigated whether gender differences in students' perceptions of classroom emotional climate and attitudes to STEM depend on whether students are undertaking iSTEM projects as part of a multidisciplinary curriculum (S, T, E "and" M) or unidisciplinary curriculum (S, T, E "or" M) and also whether they attend a government or nongovernment coeducational school. The sample consisted of 256 students in 24 coeducational grade 7-9 classes in 8 government schools and 157 students in 12 coeducational grade 7-10 classes in 6 nongovernment schools. Whereas boys were significantly more positive than girls in perceptions of clarity, motivation, consolidation and attitudes to iSTEM in coeducational government schools, there were no significant gender differences in coeducational nongovernment schools. Students of both genders in government schools were significantly more positive about all aspects of classroom emotional climate and attitudes than students of both genders in nongovernment schools, even after controlling for socioeconomic status. Also, females were slightly more positive about classroom emotional climate and in their attitudes in multidisciplinary STEM classes in government schools. This study suggests that multidisciplinary STEM classes could motivate girls to pursue STEM subjects in senior-high school and at university.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1349231
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF_LrDGdnxNqAC9u8_kDpa2AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKt37EBhO-NIo--puQIBEICBm-uqVtq5Bqjl3ZXvoMY8JpVd7nPrEy_rXeyT4m8C197qXE4DcOMkV5iHzholppNXHr2a_LoJCaljGn3dsuPqy3xymIuBXIgq8RJ3cakDpvIYNLQCWxGnOSmttq5rd3s_KThlb4vESoksbW7h6zHJjMebB0IoHqJqxi5d57xRTfBs7QtewsOupxWEiGSJZu06Fyv_jL2slqji7-UN
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0159264311;oje01oct.22;2022Sep26.02:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0159264311-1">Gender differences among students undertaking iSTEM projects in multidisciplinary vs unidisciplinary STEM classrooms in government vs nongovermnment schools: Classroom emotional climate and attitudes </title> <p>In response to the leaky STEM pipeline, particularly for girls, many schools have introduced integrated STEM (iSTEM) programs to enable students to solve problems using skills from each STEM area and hopefully enhance their interest in continuing with STEM subjects in senior-high school and university. We investigated whether gender differences in students' perceptions of classroom emotional climate and attitudes to STEM depend on whether students are undertaking iSTEM projects as part of a multidisciplinary curriculum (S, T, E and M) or unidisciplinary curriculum (S, T, E or M) and also whether they attend a government or nongovernment coeducational school. The sample consisted of 256 students in 24 coeducational grade 7–9 classes in 8 government schools and 157 students in 12 coeducational grade 7–10 classes in 6 nongovernment schools. Whereas boys were significantly more positive than girls in perceptions of clarity, motivation, consolidation and attitudes to iSTEM in coeducational government schools, there were no significant gender differences in coeducational nongovernment schools. Students of both genders in government schools were significantly more positive about all aspects of classroom emotional climate and attitudes than students of both genders in nongovernment schools, even after controlling for socioeconomic status. Also, females were slightly more positive about classroom emotional climate and in their attitudes in multidisciplinary STEM classes in government schools. This study suggests that multidisciplinary STEM classes could motivate girls to pursue STEM subjects in senior-high school and at university.</p> <p>Keywords: Attitudes; Classroom emotional climate; Gender differences; Government vs nongovernment schools; Integrated STEM (iSTEM); Multidisciplinary vs unidisciplinary curriculum</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The under-representation of females in senior-high school and university Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects, such as higher-level mathematics, physics, computing and engineering, has been a matter of concern recently for governments (e.g. Office of the Chief Scientist, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref1">51</reflink>]) and in the literature for decades (e.g. Koch et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref2">37</reflink>]; Parker, Rennie & Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]). Therefore, many studies have focused on reasons why girls are hesitant to pursue STEM subjects and careers (e.g. Dicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]; Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>]; Penner & Willer, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref6">54</reflink>]). Providing Integrated STEM (iSTEM) projects in junior-high school has been suggested as a way to redress some of these trends (Honey et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]; Sullivan & Bers, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref8">68</reflink>]), particularly the gender stereotyping of STEM careers as the preserve of males (Steinke, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref9">66</reflink>]; Tellhed et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref10">70</reflink>]), the way in which engineering, computer science and physics curricula typically use examples that relate more to the prior experiences of boys than girls, and the lower self-efficacy beliefs of females in these subjects (Cheryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]). Although there have been many studies of gender differences in individual STEM areas such as science (Scantlebury, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref12">61</reflink>]; Young & Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref13">77</reflink>]) and mathematics (Luis, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref14">43</reflink>]), prior studies of gendered experiences while completing iSTEM projects have been rare (Koul et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref15">38</reflink>], under review), despite being touted as a possible solution to the negative attitudes that many female students hold towards continuing in the STEM pipeline.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-3">Research questions</hd> <p>Using data from students' responses to the Classroom Emotional Climate questionnaire (CEC) and Attitudes to iSTEM (Fraser et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref16">22</reflink>]) while undertaking iSTEM projects, we addressed the following research questions:Research Question 1: Are there gender differences in perceptions of classroom emotional climate and attitudes to STEM when students undertake iSTEM projects in coeducational government schools compared with coeducational nongovernment classrooms?Research Question 2: Are there gender differences in perceptions of classroom emotional climate and attitudes to STEM when students undertake iSTEM projects as part of multidisciplinary curricula (S, T, E <emph>and</emph> M) compared with unidisciplinary curricula (S, T, E <emph>or</emph> M) in:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> government schools</item> <p></p> <item> nongovernment schools?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0159264311-4">Significance</hd> <p>This study is significant within the fields of both learning environments and gender differences. First, prior research focusing either on classroom emotional climate as the dependent variable or on integrated STEM (iSTEM) classes has been rare in both fields. Second, although prior research has illuminated gender difference in coeducational schools (Koul et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref17">38</reflink>]; Scantlebury, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref18">61</reflink>]), our research provided more-nuanced insights into gender differences in (a) coeducational government schools vs coeducational nongovernment schools and (b) classes undertaking iSTEM projects as part of a multidisciplinary (S, T, E <emph>and</emph> M) curriculum vs a unidisciplinary (S, T, E <emph>or</emph> M) curriculum. In Australia, government schools are free, non-government schools are fee-paying and all schools (both government and non-government) follow curricula accredited by the relevant State School Curriculum and Standards Authority.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-5">Background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159264311-6">Integrated STEM—What is it?</hd> <p>Although much has been written about introducing iSTEM projects into classroom practice, there is a lack of consensus about what constitutes an iSTEM project and which instructional practices can be used to support students engaged in such projects (Holmlund et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>]; Kloser et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>]). We take the perspective that iSTEM projects involve interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary combinations of individual STEM fields (Honey et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]; Kelley, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref22">32</reflink>]; Li, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref23">40</reflink>]). Three types of iSTEM projects have been identified (Holmlund et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref24">29</reflink>]): projects that involve an engineering design process (Lesseig et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>]; Ring et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref26">60</reflink>]); projects that examine issues of concern in contemporary life and their solutions (Bybee, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref27">8</reflink>]); and projects that involve making artefacts using tools such as robotics, coding or makerspaces (Bevan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]; Sheffield et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref29">62</reflink>]). iSTEM projects generally involve integration of skills from at least two fields from Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology and are characterised as involving the solution of ill-structured problems (Nadelson & Seifert, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref30">50</reflink>]). Students frequently work in small collaborative teams to solve these problems (Thibaut et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref31">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-7">Types of iSTEM classes and their influence on student attitudes to STEM</hd> <p>Recent studies of students' attitudes and engagement in iSTEM classrooms have revealed that students show increased interest and cognitive engagement (Loof et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref32">42</reflink>]; Sinatra et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref33">63</reflink>]) and stronger intentions to continue studying STEM subjects or undertake careers in STEM (Means et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref34">47</reflink>]; Moote, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref35">49</reflink>]). Studies of the effects of iSTEM interventions have included both iSTEM projects within unidisciplinary classes such as mathematics or science (e.g. Archer et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>]; Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref37">27</reflink>]; Pauw et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref38">53</reflink>]; Wieselmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref39">75</reflink>]; Wong & Dillon, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref40">76</reflink>]) and multidisciplinary classes whose main focus is integrating STEM subjects (e.g. Gale et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]; Gardner & Tillotson, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref42">24</reflink>]). However, studies into differences between unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary classrooms in terms of students' experiences when undertaking iSTEM projects have been rare. One study which included both short- and long-term iSTEM projects in both unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary classes suggested that development of twenty-first century skills, such as collaboration, communication, use of ICT, real-world problem solving and self-regulation, were more evident among students completing longer-term (≥ 3 lessons) iSTEM projects (Stehle & Peters-Burton, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref43">65</reflink>]). However, no comparison was made between student experiences in unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-8">iSTEM in government and nongovernment schools</hd> <p>Not only has past research into iSTEM learning environments been complicated by the length and type of projects in which students participate, but also students attend schools with different governances and fee-paying structures. Australia has a relatively-high percentage of students who attend fee-paying nongovernment schools (35%) compared with other OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries (Marks, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref44">45</reflink>]; Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]). These schools receive some government funding, are outside the control of the state education authority, and adhere to the curriculum requirements of the jurisdiction in which they are located (ACARA, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>]). Studies comparing enrolments in STEM subjects at grades 11 and 12 in Australian schools, when students first have the opportunity to choose subjects that qualify them for university entrance, show that boys are twice as likely as girls to study advanced mathematics and three times as likely to study physics or engineering even when other factors such as socioeconomic status (SES) are accounted for (Yu & Warren, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref47">78</reflink>]). The proportion of students choosing Chemistry and Physics in nongovernment schools is slightly higher for both boys and girls than for students in government schools (Yu & Warren, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref48">78</reflink>]). Higher achievement scores are obtained by students in nongovernment schools in Australia after controlling for other factors such as SES and prior attainment (Marks, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref49">45</reflink>]; Miller & Voon, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref50">48</reflink>]). These achievement scores influence the likelihood of gaining entrance to tertiary education, although SES is a stronger determinant of successful university entrance than whether the student attends a government or nongovernment school (Czarnecki, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]). However, in one study, attending a nongovernment school had a negative correlation with first-year university achievement (Marks, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref52">45</reflink>]). Because students in nongovernment schools are more likely than students in government schools to choose STEM subjects such as Physics in their final years of high school, their participation in iSTEM projects also might lead to more-positive attitudes towards STEM than for government schools.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-9">Assessment of iSTEM classroom emotional climate</hd> <p>Students' perceptions of their classroom learning environment have been shown in a multitude of studies over the past decades to reliably predict affective and cognitive outcomes (Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref53">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref54">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref55">21</reflink>]). Interactions between peers and between students and teachers within the classroom in terms of social and emotional factors also strongly influence engagement and learning outcomes (Pianta & Hamre, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref56">55</reflink>]; Reyes et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref57">59</reflink>]; Urdan & Schoenfelder, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref58">72</reflink>]). Social and emotional factors in the classroom climate also influence students' attitudes towards choosing STEM subjects and careers (Khine, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref59">33</reflink>]). A supportive classroom emotional climate is one in which teachers show care and concern for student needs, take notice of student viewpoints, support cooperation and respect for others, and recognise the learning needs of individual students (Hamre & Pianta, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref60">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although instruments such as the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref61">56</reflink>]) and the Tripod 7Cs (Ferguson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref62">16</reflink>]) assess classroom emotional climate, a new instrument specific to the iSTEM classroom was needed for assessing the environment of these unique classrooms. The Classroom Emotional Climate (CEC) questionnaire and Attitudes to STEM survey were developed and validated for use in assessing and investigating student experiences in iSTEM classes (Fraser et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>]). The CEC measures student perceptions on 7 scales: Care, Control, Clarity, Challenge, Motivation, Consolidation and Collaboration. The Attitudes to STEM questionnaire, based on the Test of Science Related Attitudes (Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref64">17</reflink>]), assesses students' enjoyment of iSTEM classes and intentions to pursue STEM subjects/careers in senior-high school or university. The structure of both surveys was confirmed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, with acceptable fit with the data emerging for the theoretical models for the seven-scale CEC questionnaire and single attitude scale, respectively (Fraser et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-10">Classroom emotional climate, gender and iSTEM</hd> <p>The literature provides a mixed picture of differences in perceptions of classroom climate between males and females in STEM subjects. In a number of studies, small and nonsignificant gender differences were found in the perceptions of the science, mathematics or technology classroom climate (e.g. Gillen et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref66">25</reflink>]; Hofstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref67">28</reflink>]; Welch et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref68">74</reflink>]). Other studies of science classes identified that girls, relative to boys, have more-positive classroom climate perceptions in terms of the care provided by the teacher (McRobbie et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref69">46</reflink>]) and cohesiveness, task orientation and cooperation (den Brok et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref70">13</reflink>]). On the other hand, a smaller number of studies have shown more-positive perceptions of classroom environment among males relative to females, including more-positive perceptions of interpersonal relationships with teachers in science classes in Korea (H.-B. Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref71">34</reflink>]). The most-consistent gender difference, however, is for students' attitudes towards learning science or mathematics and their intentions to continue studying these subjects (Koul et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref72">38</reflink>]). Relative to girls, boys are consistently more positive towards areas within STEM (e.g. Weinburgh, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref73">73</reflink>]) and have stronger self-efficacy beliefs according to large-scale international studies such as TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study) (Reilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref74">58</reflink>]). However, few studies have focused on gender differences in perceptions of iSTEM classrooms. A prior study using the CEC and Attitudes to STEM questionnaires in government, coeducational classes revealed that boys had significantly more-positive attitudes towards Clarity, Motivation, Consolidation and Attitudes than girls, but there were no significant gender differences for Care, Control, Challenge and Collaboration (Koul et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref75">38</reflink>]). Despite extensive searches, we were unable to locate any other studies of gender differences in iSTEM classes.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-11">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159264311-12">Student sample and iSTEM projects</hd> <p>For this study, government and non-government schools in Western Australia that include iSTEM projects in the curriculum were invited to participate. Participating schools encompassed district high schools in remote areas of the state, high schools in regional areas, and high schools in the major city. Schools identified classes that were undertaking iSTEM projects according to their understanding of iSTEM. The sample was one of convenience because informed consent had to be obtained from schools, teachers, parents and students. Surveys were completed anonymously during the second half of the school year (Terms 3 and 4) and all identifying information about schools or classes was removed. Coeducational classes were chosen to reduce confounding and allow 'fair' comparison between males and females within the same classrooms with the same teacher and the same learning environment.</p> <p>After removing incomplete data sets, complete sets of data from student responses from 24 grade 7–9 classes in eight government schools (<emph>n</emph> = 246: male = 138, female = 108) were obtained, including students from 10 year 7 classes, 3 year 8 classes, 2 year 9 classes and 9 mixed-year level classes. Students from 12 classes in six nongovernment schools (<emph>n</emph> = 157: male = 83, female = 74) from 1 year 7 class, 4 year 8 classes, 4 year 9 classes, 2 year 10 classes and 1 mixed-year level class provided complete responses to both surveys. All students were undertaking iSTEM projects, either in multidisciplinary (S, T, E <emph>and</emph> M) classes (government: <emph>n</emph> = 123; nongovernment <emph>n</emph> = 118) or within unidisciplinary (S, T, E <emph>or</emph> M) classes (government <emph>n</emph> = 123; non-government <emph>n</emph> = 39). Students were invited to complete the Classroom Emotional Climate (CEC) questionnaire and Attitudes scale either using online or paper format.</p> <p>Within multidisciplinary STEM classes, students undertook a series of iSTEM projects throughout the year, such as: designing a robot and programming it to complete a challenge; designing a robotic arm; designing and operating remotely-operated vehicles; making cranes with pulleys to test mechanical advantage; recycling plastics; Artificial Intelligence for good challenge; designing and explaining optical illusions; designing and building electric cars; and designing and making a spade. Some of these were elective classes while others were compulsory classes.</p> <p>Within unidisciplinary STEM classes, such as Mathematics or Science classes, students carried out intensive (1–4 week) iSTEM projects. Examples of projects were: designing and producing a container for a specific purpose; designing and building spaghetti bridges; resources projects using Minecraft; investigating jumping on another planet; designing and testing solar panel cars; egg drop challenge; and designing and building mouse traps.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-13">Measures</hd> <p>The Classroom Emotional Climate (CEC) questionnaire has 41 items that assess 7 scales: Care, Control, Clarity, Challenge, Motivation, Consolidation and Collaboration. In addition, a single Attitudes to STEM scale was also administered to students. Table 1 provides a scale description, a sample item, and the mean and standard deviation for each scale for the full data set.</p> <p>Table 1 Scale description, sample items, mean and standard deviation for each CEC and Attitudes scale</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Scale</p></th><th align="left"><p>Scale description</p><p>Extent to which students perceive that...</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sample item</p></th><th align="left"><p>Scale mean (SD)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p><italic>CEC</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Care</p></td><td align="left"><p>...their teacher cares about their learning needs and treats them with respect</p></td><td align="left"><p>My teacher is nice to me when I ask questions (Item 2)</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.02 (1.01)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control</p></td><td align="left"><p>...they behave well in class and remain focused on tasks</p></td><td align="left"><p>I behave the way my teacher wants me to. (Item 3)</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.16 (0.76)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Clarity</p></td><td align="left"><p>...their teacher gives clear directions and explanations</p></td><td align="left"><p>My teacher uses a variety of teaching methods to make things clear to me. (Item 6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.65 (1.06)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Challenge</p></td><td align="left"><p>...their teacher encourages them to think deeply and persist in the face of difficulties and provides challenging STEM projects</p></td><td align="left"><p>My teacher wants me to use my thinking skills, not just memorise things. (Item 5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.79 (0.98)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Motivation</p></td><td align="left"><p>...their STEM project and the classroom environment motivates them to be engaged in learning and seeking answers to problems</p></td><td align="left"><p>My project is enjoyable. (Item 5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.56 (1.16)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Consolidation</p></td><td align="left"><p>...their teacher consolidates understanding, consults with students and indicates how to improve</p></td><td align="left"><p>I get helpful comments to let me know what I did wrong on assignments. (Item 3)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.55 (1.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collaboration</p></td><td align="left"><p>...they collaborate effectively with peers to complete tasks</p></td><td align="left"><p>I work well with other group members when doing STEM projects. (Item 5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.88 (1.01)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Attitudes to STEM</p></td><td align="left"><p>... they are interested in, enjoy and are confident in doing STEM projects and desire to continue studying STEM subjects</p></td><td align="left"><p>Subjects that are related to STEM are some of the most interesting ones. (Item 5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.59 (1.18)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Response alternatives of Almost Never, Sometimes, About Half the Time, Most of the Time and Almost Always were scored, respectively, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5</p> <p>When the CEC instrument was previously validated using these data, Principal Component Analysis revealed that 74.7% of the total variance was explained by a seven-scale structure, with each item having a factor loading of greater than 0.4 for its own scale and less than 0.4 on each the other scales (Fraser et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref76">22</reflink>]). Confirmatory Factor Analysis also showed acceptable fit of the data to a theoretical seven-scale model (χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.9; RMSEA = 0.07; SRMR = 0.05; CFI = 0.94).</p> <p>Students responded to each item on a five-point frequency response scale ranging from Almost Never to Almost Always. In order to transform non-linear, ordinal data for each scale into linear, interval measures, Rasch Rating Scale Modelling for categorical data (Rasch, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref77">57</reflink>]) was carried out using Winsteps 4.4.7 software (Linacre, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref78">41</reflink>]). Rasch analysis enables transformation of ordinal responses to items for each individual respondent into a single person measure of a student's perceptions of the latent variable. The higher the Rasch person measure for a scale, the more positive the student is towards items for that particular dimension. Person measures also can be scaled to range between 1 and 100 for ease of comparison and used for valid statistical comparisons between groups of individuals, such as females and males (Boone et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>]). When the reliability for each scale for males and females was estimated using the real person reliability statistic, which is more conservative than Cronbach's alpha coefficient (Wright and Masters 2002), it was found to be satisfactory in each case.</p> <p>Because student responses were transformed using Rasch analysis, item fit and confirmation of unidimensionality were checked for each CEC scale and found to be satisfactory. The CEC questionnaire's internal consistency reliability and concurrent, discriminant and predictive validities supported the theoretical structure (Fraser et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref80">22</reflink>]). Finally, in order to ensure that the data were appropriate for comparing male and female responses, invariance analysis of CEC questionnaire data was used to confirm a similar structure for male and female students. In a prior study of responses to the CEC and the Attitudes questionnaires (Koul et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref81">38</reflink>], under review), differential item functioning (DIF) between male and female students was carried out to determine whether perceptions of students with similar overall person measures for a scale (e.g. Control) had different perceptions of individual items describing that scale (Chalmers et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref82">9</reflink>]). Because no significant differences were found between male and female perceptions of individual items, student perceptions could confidently be compared on the basis of gender.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-14">Data analysis</hd> <p>Raw ordinal data were used to check each scale's alpha reliability before transforming data using Rasch analysis. After transforming data from all schools into Rasch person measures on a scale of 1–100 for each student, data for each CEC and Attitudes scale for males and females in government schools and for males and females in nongovernment schools were compared separately using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) in order to reduce the Type I error rate that would be associated with comparing genders with a separate univariate ANOVA for each dimension (Stevens, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref83">67</reflink>]). Prior to running the one-way MANOVA using SPSS, outliers in the data were identified by determining Mahalanobis distances and removed if their distances exceeded the critical value of 26.13 for df = 8 (M. G. Kim, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref84">35</reflink>]; Mahalanobis, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref85">44</reflink>]). Shapiro-Wilks' test for normality and tests for multi-collinearity were carried out as well as Levene's test of equality of error variances. ANOVA results based on the MANOVA were used to determine if students' experiences while undertaking iSTEM projects were significantly different for females and male in terms of each CEC and Attitudes scale. Cohen's (1998) <emph>d</emph> effect size for gender differences for each scale was calculated by dividing the difference between the mean Rasch scores of males and females by the pooled standard deviations of each group. Statistical significance alone does not indicate the importance of the difference between two groups because significant differences could have magnitudes or effect sizes that are quite small and therefore relatively unimportant educationally (Stevens, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref86">67</reflink>]). Additionally, comparison of averages and standard deviations based on linear Rasch scores rather than non-linear ordinal scores provide a more-accurate estimation of effect sizes. An effect size of <emph>d</emph> > 0.2 is considered small, of 0.2 < <emph>d</emph> < 0.8 medium and of <emph>d</emph> > 0.8 large (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref87">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Secondly, one-way MANCOVA was carried out to compare student responses by school type (government versus nongovernment) while controlling for SES as a covariate. The indicator of average school SES used was the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority's (ACARA) Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA), which is based on parents' occupation and education, geographical location and proportion of indigenous students, and which ranks schools on a percentage scale (ACARA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>]). Participating schools ranged from the 16th to the 97th percentile on the ICSEA. Controlling for ICSEA allowed a more-equitable comparison of students because SES is a strong determinant of university-entrance and high-school academic outcomes (Czarnecki, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref89">12</reflink>]; Marks, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref90">45</reflink>]; Miller & Voon, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref91">48</reflink>]). Each ANOVA provided the partial η<sups>2</sups> statistic as an effect size that represents the proportion of variance in each scale associated with school type.</p> <p>Finally, separate MANOVAs were carried out for government and nongovernment schools to compare gender differences for unidisciplinary versus multidisciplinary STEM classes. ANOVA results, differences between means for males and females, and Cohen's effect sizes (<emph>d</emph>) were used to determine whether male and female perceptions in different types of classes varied significantly.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-15">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159264311-16">Research question 1</hd> <p>The focus of our first research question was gender differences in perceptions of classroom emotional climate and attitudes to STEM among students undertaking iSTEM projects in coeducational government schools compared with coeducational nongovernment schools. After transformation of all student responses to each scale into Rasch person measures, male and female responses to each scale were compared for government and nongovernment schools. Results in Table 2 and Fig. 1 show that, in government schools, males were more positive than female students for all scales except Control, for which girls were more positive. Gender differences were significant for Clarity, Motivation, Consolidation and Attitudes to STEM, but effect sizes were small to moderate. The largest effect sizes for gender differences in government schools were 0.50 standard deviations for Motivation, 0.49 for Attitudes to STEM and 0.34 for Clarity.</p> <p>Table 2 MANOVA results for gender differences in CEC and Attitudes scales (in logits) in coeducational government and coeducational nongovernment schools (scale 0–100)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Coeducational government schools</p></th><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Coeducational nongovernment schools</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Gender (<italic>n</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean (Logits)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Difference (M-F)</p></th><th align="left"><p>ANOVA <italic>F</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Effect size <italic>d</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Gender (<italic>n</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean (Logits)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Difference (M-F)</p></th><th align="left"><p>ANOVA <italic>F</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Effect size <italic>d</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Care</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (132)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>76.88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.46</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.16</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (83)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>60.47</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 2.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.09</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F (107)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>73.76</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>F (72)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62.55</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Control</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (132)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>72.90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 3.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.78</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (83)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>66.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 2.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.12</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F (107)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>76.01</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>F (72)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>68.20</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Clarity</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (132)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>69.28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.79</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.95**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (83)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>51.75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F (107)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62.49</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>F (72)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>51.58</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Challenge</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (132)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>68.94</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.72</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (83)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>53.91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F (107)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>64.98</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>F (72)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>53.35</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Motivation</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (132)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>72.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.48</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.99**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (83)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.07</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F (107)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>60.79</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>F (72)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>46.90</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Consolidation</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (132)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>69.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.53</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.08*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (83)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F (107)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>63.60</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>F (72)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48.06</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Collaboration</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (132)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>69.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.24</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (83)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>59.59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 4.33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.93</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.15</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F (107)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>64.91</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>F (72)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>63.52</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Attitudes to STEM</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (132)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>69.57</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.49***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.49</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (83)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>53.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F (107)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>58.54</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>F (72)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48.80</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>*p</emph> < 0.05, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Gender differences in classroom emotional climate and attitudes to STEM in government and nongovernment schools</p> <p>In contrast, there were no significant gender differences in CEC or attitudes in nongovernment schools (Table 2 and Fig. 1). Girls were somewhat more positive than boys for Care, Control and Collaboration but, again, all effect sizes were small.</p> <p>Figure 1 also shows that students of both genders in government schools were more positive for all CEC and Attitudes scales than students of both genders in nongovernment schools. Because socioeconomic status (SES) is a predictor of schooling outcomes such as university entrance (Czarnecki, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref92">12</reflink>]), a one-way MANCOVA was conducted to control for ICSEA (as a measure of SES) when investigating gender and school-type differences in CEC and attitudes scales. In a multivariate test of the effect of school type, Box's test of equality of covariance matrices revealed a significant difference, which indicates multivariate non-homogeneity. Levene's test of equality of error variances showed univariate homogeneity for each dependent variable. For this reason, Pillai's Trace was chosen as the appropriate multivariate test to yield the following results: Pillai's Trace (school type) = 0.079, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref93">8</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib384" id="ref94">384</reflink>) = 4.14, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000, partial eta<sups>2</sups> = 0.079; Pillai's Trace (ICSEA) = 0.031, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref95">8</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib384" id="ref96">384</reflink>) = 1.52, <emph>p</emph> = 0.15, partial eta<sups>2</sups> = 0.031. This suggests a significant multivariate effect for school type on the dependent variables when taking into account correlations between variables and controlling for ICSEA. However, there was no multivariate effect on dependent variables for school ICSEA. The between-subject effects of school type and ICSEA presented in Table 3 confirm that ICSEA (or SES) had no significant effect on CEC or Attitudes. However, there was a significant effect for school type, with students in government schools being significantly more positive about all CEC and attitude scales than students in nongovernment schools.</p> <p>Table 3 Test of between-subject effects for school type (government vs nongovernment) and ICSEA on CEC and attitudes to STEM</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Effect</p></th><th align="left"><p>Dependent variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>ANOVA <italic>F</italic> (1,394)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Partial eta<sup>2</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="8"><p>ICSEA</p></td><td align="left"><p>Care</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.78</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.002</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Clarity</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Challenge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Motivation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Consolidation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.53</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collaboration</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.72</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Attitudes to STEM</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="8"><p>Type of School</p></td><td align="left"><p>Care</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23.55***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.057</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.85**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.022</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Clarity</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.96***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.053</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Challenge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.80***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.039</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Motivation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.83***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.044</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Consolidation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.31***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.061</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collaboration</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.32*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.016</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Attitudes to STEM</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.46*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.016</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>*p</emph> < 0.05, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-17">Research question 2</hd> <p>Our second research question involved gender differences in perceptions of classroom emotional climate and attitudes to STEM when students undertake iSTEM projects as part of a multidisciplinary curriculum (S, T, E <emph>and</emph> M) compared with a unidisciplinary curriculum (S, T, E <emph>or</emph> M) in (a) government schools and (b) nongovernment schools. In order to obtain a more-nuanced understanding of classroom emotional climate and attitudes to STEM in iSTEM classes, data were separated into responses from students in unidisciplinary (U) and multidisciplinary (M) STEM classes. MANOVA was used to probe gender differences in CEC and Attitudes in unidisciplinary vs multidisciplinary classes in government vs nongovernment schools. Table 4, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 present the results.</p> <p>Table 4 MANOVA results for gender differences in CEC and attitudes (in logits) in coeducational government vs coeducational nongovernment schools in unidisciplinary (U) vs multidisciplinary (M) classes (scale 0–100)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Coeducational government schools</p></th><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Coeducational nongovernment schools</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Type of class (<italic>n</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Gender (<italic>n</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean measure (Logits)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Difference (M–F)</p></th><th align="left"><p>ANOVA <italic>F</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Effect size <italic>d</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Type of class (<italic>n</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Gender (<italic>n</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean measure (Logits)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Difference (M–F)</p></th><th align="left"><p>ANOVA <italic>F</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Effect size <italic>d</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Care</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (95)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>78.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 5.60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (118)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (66)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>57.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.22</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (28)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>84.14</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (52)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>58.18</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (43)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>69.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 1.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>U (39)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (17)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>70.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 1.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.08</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (80)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>70.33</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (22)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>71.24</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Control</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (95)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>74.85</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 7.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.25*</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (118)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (66)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>66.64</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 2.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.56</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (28)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>82.74</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (52)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>69.26</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (43)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>66.27</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 6.98</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.27*</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.55</p></td><td align="left"><p>U (39)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (17)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>63.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 3.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.32</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (80)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>73.25</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (22)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>67.02</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Clarity</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (95)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>72.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.40</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (118)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (66)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>50.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 1.96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (28)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>72.72</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (52)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>52.13</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (43)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>61.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.98</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.70</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>U (39)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (17)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>57.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.79</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.58</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (80)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>58.85</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (22)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>50.96</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Challenge</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (95)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>71.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 4.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.48</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (118)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (66)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>51.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 1.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.06</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (28)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>75.85</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (52)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>52.97</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (43)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>U (39)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (17)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>61.57</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.49</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (80)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>61.58</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (22)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>56.69</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Motivation</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (95)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>75.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.52</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (118)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (66)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>46.61</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 1.93</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (28)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>76.28</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (52)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48.54</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (43)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>61.30</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>U (39)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (17)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>56.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.53</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (80)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>55.15</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (22)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.93</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Consolidation</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (95)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>71.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (118)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (66)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>46.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.22</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (28)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>72.06</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (52)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>46.65</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (43)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62.65</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.24</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>U (39)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (17)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>55.94</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.99</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.21</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (80)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>60.56</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (22)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>52.95</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Collaboration</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (95)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>72.49</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 2.69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.39</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.19</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (118)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (66)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>58.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (28)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>75.18</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (52)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>58.85</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (43)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>61.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.52</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>U (39)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (17)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62.94</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 10.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.77</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (80)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>61.72</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (22)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>73.60</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Attitudes to STEM</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (95)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>75.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (118)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (66)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>51.57</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.52</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (28)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>76.18</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (52)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>50.05</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U (123)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (43)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>60.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>U (39)</p></td><td align="left"><p>M (17)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.01*</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (80)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>52.75</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F (22)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48.15</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>M = Multidisciplinary; U = unidisciplinary *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Government schools: Gender differences in CEC and attitudes for unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary classes</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Nongovernment schools: Gender differences in CEC and attitudes for unidisciplinary and muiltidisciplinary classes</p> <p>For students in coeducational government schools, the only significant gender difference in CEC and Attitudes for either unidisciplinary or multidisciplinary classes was for Control, with girls more positive than boys about their own classroom behaviour (Table 4). However, as Fig. 2 also illustrates for government schools, girls were somewhat less positive than boys about Clarity, Challenge, Motivation, Consolidation and Attitudes towards STEM in unidisciplinary STEM classes, but girls were as positive or somewhat more positive than boys about all aspects CEC and attitudes in multidisciplinary STEM classrooms. In government schools, students of both genders in multidisciplinary classes were more positive than students of both genders in unidisciplinary classes (Fig. 2).</p> <p>However, the results are more mixed for students of nongovernment schools. Figure 3 reveals very small gender differences in the CEC and Attitudes in unidisciplinary STEM classes. In multidisciplinary classes, however, girls were much more positive about Collaboration, but more negative than boys for Clarity, Challenge, Motivation, Consolidation and Attitudes to STEM (Fig. 3). For girls in nongovernment schools, also there was little difference between unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary classes in terms of Control, Clarity, Motivation or Attitudes. On the other hand, boys in nongovernment schools generally had more-positive CEC and Attitudes scores in multidisciplinary classes than in unidisciplinary classes except for Control.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-18">Discussion</hd> <p>Gender differences in perceptions of classroom emotional climate and attitudes in government vs nongovernment schools were interesting and unexpected. Despite the slightly-higher senior-school enrolment numbers in individual STEM subjects, particularly Chemistry and Physics, in nongovernment schools compared with government schools (Yu & Warren, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref97">78</reflink>]), students in coeducational government schools were significantly more positive about the iSTEM classroom emotional climate and their attitudes to STEM than students in coeducational nongovernment schools (Table 2, Fig. 1). Despite significant gender differences favouring males in government schools, students of both genders were more positive than students of both genders in nongovernment schools regarding CEC and attitudes (Fig. 1). This suggests that participation in iSTEM projects in grades 7–10 might help students in government schools to bridge the gap in uptake of STEM subjects in senior-high school (grades 11 & 12) by providing experiences in problem solving across STEM domains and developing more-positive attitudes towards STEM.</p> <p>Our comparison of CEC and attitudes scores in multidisciplinary classes compared with unidisciplinary classes, particularly in government schools, highlights some benefits for girls. Girls' lack of experiences in physics, engineering and computing projects and their lower self-efficacy beliefs compared with boys in science and mathematics are well documented (Cheryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref98">10</reflink>]; Reilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref99">58</reflink>]). Focusing on iSTEM projects over a semester in multidisciplinary classes could give students more time to build skills in these areas and improve self-efficacy (Stehle & Peters-Burton, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref100">65</reflink>]). Additionally, longer-term engagements with iSTEM in multidisciplinary classes could provide more opportunities to authentically engage with the real-world problem solving that is required in STEM careers and hence help girls to overcome some of their gendered stereotypes about these careers (Steinke, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref101">66</reflink>]; Tellhed et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref102">70</reflink>]). These benefits were identified for all government school students, and particularly for girls in multidisciplinary classes, in terms of more-positive perceptions of Care from teachers, Clarity of instruction and feedback (Consolidation) received, compared with unidisciplinary STEM classes (Fig. 2). This suggests that females in multidisciplinary classes in government schools could feel more confident about carrying out iSTEM tasks and therefore develop more-positive attitudes towards STEM and increased interest in choosing STEM subjects in the future.</p> <p>The picture for students in nongovernment schools is more ambiguous (Fig. 3), with boys appearing to benefit more from multidisciplinary STEM classes than girls, although girls in multidisciplinary classes had slightly-higher Care, Challenge and Consolidation scores than girls in unidisciplinary classes. In particular, girls perceived much more positive Collaboration with peers in multidisciplinary classes than in unidisciplinary classes (Fig. 3). However, girls' attitudes towards STEM were similar in unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary classes, which could be related to the types of projects in multidisciplinary classes. In multidisciplinary classes, girls had lower Motivation scores than boys in nongovernment schools, but similar Motivation scores to boys in government schools; however, girls were less motivated than boys by the projects in unidisciplinary classes in both government schools (Figs. 2) and nongovernment Schools (Fig. 3).</p> <p>Our results have a number of implications for teaching iSTEM in middle school or junior-high school. Firstly, allowing students to choose from a range of projects that engage their interests could increase their motivation. Further research is required to identify the types of projects that motivate girls to engage more deeply in problem solving. Many student projects in our study involved either engineering design and problem solving (Lesseig et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref103">39</reflink>]; Ring et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref104">60</reflink>]) or making artefacts, robotics or coding (Bevan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref105">6</reflink>]; Sheffield et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref106">62</reflink>]), but very few involved developing solutions to problems in everyday life (Bybee, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref107">8</reflink>]). Further research is needed into what types of projects positively affect motivation, particularly among girls.</p> <p>Secondly, our study suggests that girls who participate in multidisciplinary STEM classes had more time to develop confidence and skills which could enhance self-efficacy and attitudes towards further participation in STEM subjects/careers.</p> <p>This study involved relatively small numbers of students, particularly when the data were broken down into subgroups (government/nongovernment and multidisciplinary/unisdisciplinary). Because of the small number of students in nongovernment schools participating in unidisciplinary STEM classes, together with the disproportional numbers of boys and girls in each group, conclusions remain tentative until studies with larger data sets replicate these results. Participating schools self-identified iSTEM classes, but we were unable to test the fidelity of iSTEM implementation. Also, it is unclear whether multidisciplinary STEM classes were elective subjects (i.e. chosen by the students), which could help to explain why girls were more positive in these classes. However, students' degree of choice of iSTEM projects within these iSTEM classes appears to have been limited in most classes.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study is significant within the fields of both learning environments and gender differences. First, it has been rare in prior research in both fields to focus either on classroom emotional climate as the dependent variable or on integrated STEM (iSTEM) classes. Second, although prior research has illuminated gender difference in coeducational schools, our research provided more-nuanced insights into gender differences in (a) coeducational government schools vs coeducational nongovernment schools and (b) classes undertaking iSTEM projects as part of a multidisciplinary (S, T, E <emph>and</emph> M) curriculum vs a unidisciplinary (S, T, E <emph>or</emph> M) curriculum.</p> <p>Our study highlights the value of using learning environment criteria in research on gender differences because several fascinating patterns were identified. Whereas boys were significantly more positive than girls in their classroom environment perceptions in coeducational government schools, there were no significant gender differences incoeducational nongovernment schools. Students of both genders in government schools were significantly more positive about all aspects of classroom environment than students of both genders in nongovernment schools, even after controlling for socioeconomic status. Also, females were slightly more positive about classroom climate in multidisciplinary STEM classes (S, T, E <emph>and</emph> M) in government schools. However, because of the tentativeness of these findings and because causal inferences are not justified, this research should be replicated using different and larger samples, a range of different learning environment questionnaires reviewed by Fraser ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref108">21</reflink>]), and research designs that permit causal inferences.</p> <p>This study suggests the potential usefulness of the recently-developed Classroom Emotional Climate (CEC) questionnaire as a new source of scales in various lines of learning environment research. For example, as in past studies, the CEC could provide a useful source of criteria of effectiveness in the evaluation of educational initiatives (e.g. Spinner & Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref109">64</reflink>]), or a source of independent variables in studies of outcome–environment associations (e.g. Taylor & Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref110">69</reflink>]), or an opportunity to create typologies of classroom emotional climates (Dorman et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref111">15</reflink>]). Also, educational practitioners could use the CEC to obtain feedback to guide improvements in the important construct of classroom emotional climate in their settings through approaches described by Fraser ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref112">18</reflink>]) and Aldridge et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref113">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-20">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This research was supported by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project grant.</p> <hd id="AN0159264311-21">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0159264311-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref88" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2012). Guide to understanding ICSEA. <ulink href="http://www.saasso.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Guide%5fto%5funderstanding%5fICSEA.pdf">http://www.saasso.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Guide%5fto%5funderstanding%5fICSEA.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref46" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> ACARA. (2016). National report on schooling in Australia. https://<ulink href="http://www.acara.edu.au/:">www.acara.edu.au/:</ulink> Australian Government Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.acara.edu.au/about-us/acara-reports-and-publications">www.acara.edu.au/about-us/acara-reports-and-publications</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref113" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aldridge JM, Fraser BJ, Bell L, Dorman JP. Using a new learning environment questionnaire for reflection in teacher action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2012; 23: 259-290. 10.1007/s10972-012-9268-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Archer L, DeWitt J, Dillon J. 'It didn't really change my opinion': Exploring what works, what doesn't and why in a school science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers intervention. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2014; 32; 1: 35-55. 10.1080/02635143.2013.865601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref45" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Schools. https://<ulink href="http://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release:">www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release:</ulink> Australian Government Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release">www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bevan B, Gutwill JP, Petrich M, Wilkinson K. Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education. 2015; 99; 1: 98-120. 10.1002/sce.21151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref79" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boone WJ, Staver JR, Yale MS. Rasch analysis in the human sciences. 2014; Springer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref27" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35. Retrieved from https://link.library.curtin.edu.au/gw?url=https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/advancing-stem-education-2020-vision/docview/853062675/se-2?accountid=10382;">www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/advancing-stem-education-2020-vision/docview/853062675/se-2?accountid=10382;</ulink><ulink href="http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/openurl??url%5fver=Z39.88-2004&rft%5fval%5ffmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3Aeducation&atitle=Advancing+STEM+Education%3A+A+2020+Vision&title=Technology+and+Engineering+Teacher&issn=&date=2010-09-01&volume=70&issue=1&spage=30&au=Bybee%2C+Rodger+W&isbn=&jtitle=Technology+and+Engineering+Teacher&btitle=&rft%5fid=info:eric/&rft%5fid=info:doi/">http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/openurl??url%5fver=Z39.88-2004&rft%5fval%5ffmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3Aeducation&atitle=Advancing+STEM+Education%3A+A+2020+Vision&title=Technology+and+Engineering+Teacher&issn=&date=2010-09-01&volume=70&issue=1&spage=30&au=Bybee%2C+Rodger+W&isbn=&jtitle=Technology+and+Engineering+Teacher&btitle=&rft%5fid=info:eric/&rft%5fid=info:doi/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref82" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chalmers RP, Counsell A, Flora DB. It might not make a big DIF: Improved differential test functionong statistics that account for sampling variability. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2016; 76: 114-140. 10.1177/0013164415584576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheryan S, Ziegler SA, Montoya AK, Jiang L. Why are some STEM fields more gnder balanced than others?. Psychological Bulletin. 2017; 143; 1: 1-35. 10.1037/bul00000521</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 19882; Lawrence Earlbaum Associates</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Czarnecki K. Less inequality through universal access? Socioeconomic background of tertiary entrants in Australia after the expansion of university participation. Higher Education. 2018; 76; 3: 501-518. 10.1007/s10734-017-0222-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> den Brok P, Fisher DL, Rickards T, Bull E. Californian science students' perceptions of their classroom learning environments. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2006; 12; 1: 3-25. 10.1080/13803610500392053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dicke A-L, Safavian N, Eccles JS. Traditional gender role beliefs and career attainment in STEM: A gendered story?. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 10: 1053. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01053PMID-31139116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorman JP, Aldridge JM, Fraser BJ. Using students' assessment of classroom environment to develop a typology of secondary school classrooms. International Education Journal. 2006; 7; 7: 906-915</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson, R. F. (2010). Student perceptions of the Met Project. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from https://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/resource/met-project-student-perceptions.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser BJ. Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA). 1981: Melbourne; Australian Council for Educational Research</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser BJFreiberg HJ. Using learning environment perceptions to improve classroom and school climates. School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments. 1999; Falmer: 65-83</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser BJFraser BJ, Tobin KG, McRobbie CJ. Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. Second international handbook of science education. 2012; Springer: 1191-1239. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_79</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser BJLederman NG, Abell SK. Classroom learning environments: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Handbook of research on science education. 20142; Routledge: 104-117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser BJZandvliet DB, Fraser BJ. Milestones in the evolution of the learning environments field over the past three decades. Thirty years of learning environments. 2019: Leiden; Brill Sense: 1-19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser BJ, McLure F, Koul R. Assessing classroom emotional climate in STEM classrooms: Developing and validating a questionnaire. Learning Environments Research. 2021; 24; 1: 1-21. 10.1007/s10984-020-09316-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gale J, Alemdar M, Lingle J, Newton S. Exploring critical components of an integrated STEM curriculum: An application of the innovation implementation framework. International Journal of STEM Education. 2020; 7; 1: 5. 10.1186/s40594-020-0204-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner MA, Tillotson JW. Explorations of an integrated STEM middle school classroom: Understanding spatial and temporal possibilities for collective teaching. International Journal of Science Education. 2020; 42; 11: 1-20. 10.1080/09500693.2020.1794078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillen A, Wright A, Spink L. Student perceptions of a positive climate for learning: A case study. Educational Psychology in Practice. 2011; 27; 1: 65-82. 10.1080/02667363.2011.549355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamre BK, Pianta RCPianta RC, Cox MJ, Snow KL. Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the ero of accountability. 2007: Baltimore, MD; Brookes: 49-83</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han S, Capraro R, Capraro MM. How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2015; 13: 1089-1113. 10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstein A, Cohen I, Lazarowitz R. The learning environment of high school students in chemistry and biology laboratories. Research in Science & Technological Education. 1996; 14; 1: 103-116. 10.1080/0263514960140108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmlund TD, Lesseig K, Slavit D. Making sense of "STEM education" in K-12 contexts. International Journal of STEM Education. 2018; 5; 1: 32. 10.1186/s40594-018-0127-2PMID-30631722</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honey M, Pearson G, Schweingruber H. STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. 2014; The National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang J, Keinonen T, Salonen A. Role of interest and self-concept in predicting science aspirations: Gender study. Research in Science Education. 2019. 10.1007/s11165-019-09905-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley TR, Geoff KJ. A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education. 2016. 10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khine MS. Attitude measurements in science education: Classic and contemporary approaches. 2015: Charlotte, NC; Information Age Publishing</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim H-B, Fisher DL, Fraser BJ. Classroom environment and teacher interpersonal behaviour in secondary science classes in Korea. Evaluation & Research in Education. 2000; 14; 1: 3-22. 10.1080/09500790008666958</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim MG. Multivariate outliers and decompositions of Mahalanobis distance. Communications in Statistics Theory and Methods. 2000; 29; 7: 1511-1526. 10.1080/03610920008832559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kloser M, Wilsey M, Twohy KE, Immonen AD, Navotas AC. "We do STEM": Unsettled conceptions of STEM education in middle school STEM classrooms. School Science and Mathematics. 2018; 118; 8: 335-347. 10.1111/ssm.12304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koch A, Polnick B, Irby B. Girls and women in STEM: A never ending story. 2014: Charlotte, NC; Information Age Publishing</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koul R, McLure F, Fraser BJ. Gender differences in classroom emotional climate and attitudes among students undertaking integrated STEM projects: A Rasch analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2021. 10.1080/02635143.2021.1981852</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesseig K, Slavit D, Nelson TH. Jumping on the STEM bandwagon: How middle grades students and teachers can benefit from STEM experiences. Middle School Journal. 2017; 48; 3: 15-24. 10.1080/00940771.2017.1297663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li Y. Promoting the development of interdisciplinary research in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research. 2018; 1; 1–2: 1-6. 10.1007/s41979-018-0009-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linacre, J. M. (2019). Winsteps (Version 4.4.7). Chicago: Winsteps.com.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loof H, Struyf A, Pauw J, Petegem P. Teachers' motivating style and students' motivation and engagement in STEM: The relationship between three key educational concepts. Research in Science Education. 2019. 10.1007/s11165-019-9830-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luis AL. Unpacking the male superiority myth and masculinization of mathematics at the intersections: A review of research on gender in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2017; 48; 4: 397-433. 10.5951/jresematheduc.48.4.0397</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahalanobis PC. On the generalised distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India. 1936; 2; 1: 49-55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marks GN. Do Catholic and Independent schools "add-value" to students' Tertiary Entrance Performance? Evidence from longitudinal population data. Australian Journal of Education. 2015; 59; 2: 133-157. 10.1177/0004944115586658</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McRobbie CJ, Giddings GJ, Fraser BJ. Research into the environment of science laboratory classes in Australian schools. Research in Science Education. 1990; 20; 1: 200-209. 10.1007/bf02620495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means B, Wang H, Young V, Peters VL, Lynch SJ. STEM-focused high schools as a strategy for enhancing readiness for postsecondary STEM programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2016; 53; 5: 709-736. 10.1002/tea.21313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller PW, Voon D. Government versus non-government schools: A nation-wide assessment using Australian NAPLAN data. Australian Economic Papers. 2012; 51; 3: 147-166. 10.1111/j.1467-8454.2012.00429.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moote JK. Investigating the impact of classroom climate on UK school students taking part in a science inquiry-based learning programme–CREST. Research Papers in Education. 2020; 35; 4: 379-415. 10.1080/02671522.2019.1568533</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nadelson LS, Seifert AL. Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 110; 3: 221-223. 10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Chief Scientist. (2020). Australia's STEM workforce. Canberra: Australian Government Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2016/03/report-australias-stem-workforce">www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2016/03/report-australias-stem-workforce</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, L.H, Rennie, L.J, Fraser, B.J. (Eds.). Gender, science and mathematics: Shortening the shadow. Springer, USA</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pauw JB, Ardies J, Hens K, Wullemen A, Vyver YV, Rydant T, Verbraeken H. Short and long term impact of a high-tech STEM intervention on pupils' attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2020. 10.1007/s10798-020-09627-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penner AM, Willer R. Men's overpersistence and the gender gap in science and mathematics. 2019: Socius; Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. 10.1177/2378023118821836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta RC, Hamre BK. Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher. 2009; 38; 2: 109-119. 10.3102/0013189X09332374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta RC, La Paro KM, Hamre BK. Classroom Assessment Scoring SystemTM: Manual K–3. 2008: Baltimore, MD; Brookes</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. 1960: Chicago; University of Chicago</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reilly D, Neumann DL, Andrews G. Investigating gender differences in mathematics and science: Results from the 2011 Trends in Mathematics and Science Survey. Research in Science Education. 2019; 49; 1: 25-50. 10.1007/s11165-017-9630-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reyes MR, Brackett MA, Rivers SE, White M, Salovey P. Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104; 3: 700-712. 10.1037/a0027268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ring EA, Dare EA, Crotty EA, Roehrig GH. The evolution of teacher conceptions of STEM education throughout an intensive professional development experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2017; 28; 5: 444-467. 10.1080/1046560x.2017.1356671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scantlebury KFraser BJ, Tobin KG, McRobbie CJ. Still part of the conversation: Gender issues in science education. Second international handbook of science education. 2012; Springer: 499-512. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_34</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheffield R, Koul R, Blackley S, Maynard N. Makerspace in STEM for girls: A physical space to develop twenty-first-century skills. Educational Media International. 2017; 54; 2: 1-17. 10.1080/09523987.2017.1362812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinatra GM, Mukhopadhyay A, Allbright TN. Speedometry: A vehicle for promoting interest and engagement through integrated STEM instruction. The Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 110; 3: 308-316. 10.1080/00220671.2016.1273178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spinner H, Fraser BJ. Evaluation of an innovative mathematics program in terms of classroom environment, student attitudes, and conceptual development. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2005; 3; 2: 267-293. 10.1007/s10763-004-6531-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stehle SM, Peters-Burton EE. Developing student 21st Century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education. 2019; 6; 1: 39. 10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinke J. Adolescent girls' STEM identity formation and media images of STEM professionals: Considering the influence of contextual cues. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017; 8: 716. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00716PMID-28603505</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens JP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 20095; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan A, Bers MU. Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls' interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2019; 29; 5: 1033-1051. 10.1007/s10798-018-9483-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor BA, Fraser BJ. Relationships between learning environment and mathematics anxiety. Learning Environments Research. 2013; 16; 2: 297-313. 10.1007/s10984-013-9134-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tellhed U, Bäckström M, Björklund F. Will I fit in and do well? The importance of social belongingness and self-efficacy for explaining gender differences in interest in STEM and HEED majors. Sex Roles. 2016; 77; 1: 86-96. 10.1007/s11199-016-0694-yPMID-28725103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thibaut, L, Ceuppens, S, Loof, H, Meester, J, Goovaerts, L, Struyf, A, Depaepe, F. (2018) Integrated STEM education A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urdan, T, & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 331–349. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440506000380">www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440506000380</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinburgh M. Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1995; 32; 4: 387-398. 10.1002/tea.3660320407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Welch AG, Cakir M, Peterson CM, Ray CM. The relationship between gender and classroom environment in Turkish science classrooms. Educational Research and Reviews. 2014; 9; 20: 893-903. 10.5897/err2014.1839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wieselmann JR, Dare EA, Ring-Whalen EA, Roehrig GH. "I just do what the boys tell me": Exploring small group student interactions in an integrated STEM unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2019; 57; 1: 112-144. 10.1002/tea.21587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong V, Dillon J. Crossing the boundaries: Collaborations between mathematics and science departments in English secondary (high) schools. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2019; 38; 4: 1-21. 10.1080/02635143.2019.1636024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young DJ, Fraser BJ. Gender differences in science achievement: Do school effects make a difference?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1994; 31; 8: 857-871. 10.1002/tea.3660310808</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu, M, & Warren, D. (2019). Shaping futures: School subject choice and enrolment in STEM. Australian Institute of Family Studies Retrieved from https://growingupinaustralia.gov.au/research-findings/annual-statistical-reports-2018/shaping-futures-school-subject-choice-and-enrolment-stem</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Felicity I. McLure; Rekha B. Koul and Barry J. Fraser</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib384" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref112"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1349231
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Gender Differences among Students Undertaking iSTEM Projects in Multidisciplinary vs Unidisciplinary STEM Classrooms in Government vs Nongovermnment Schools: Classroom Emotional Climate and Attitudes
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McLure%2C+Felicity+I%2E%22">McLure, Felicity I.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Koul%2C+Rekha+B%2E%22">Koul, Rekha B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fraser%2C+Barry+J%2E%22">Fraser, Barry J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1026-9495">0000-0003-1026-9495</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Environments+Research%22"><i>Learning Environments Research</i></searchLink>. Oct 2022 25(3):917-937.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrated+Curriculum%22">Integrated Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coeducation%22">Coeducation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Schools%22">Public Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Private+Schools%22">Private Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10984-021-09392-9
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1387-1579<br />1573-1855
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In response to the leaky STEM pipeline, particularly for girls, many schools have introduced integrated STEM (iSTEM) programs to enable students to solve problems using skills from each STEM area and hopefully enhance their interest in continuing with STEM subjects in senior-high school and university. We investigated whether gender differences in students' perceptions of classroom emotional climate and attitudes to STEM depend on whether students are undertaking iSTEM projects as part of a multidisciplinary curriculum (S, T, E "and" M) or unidisciplinary curriculum (S, T, E "or" M) and also whether they attend a government or nongovernment coeducational school. The sample consisted of 256 students in 24 coeducational grade 7-9 classes in 8 government schools and 157 students in 12 coeducational grade 7-10 classes in 6 nongovernment schools. Whereas boys were significantly more positive than girls in perceptions of clarity, motivation, consolidation and attitudes to iSTEM in coeducational government schools, there were no significant gender differences in coeducational nongovernment schools. Students of both genders in government schools were significantly more positive about all aspects of classroom emotional climate and attitudes than students of both genders in nongovernment schools, even after controlling for socioeconomic status. Also, females were slightly more positive about classroom emotional climate and in their attitudes in multidisciplinary STEM classes in government schools. This study suggests that multidisciplinary STEM classes could motivate girls to pursue STEM subjects in senior-high school and at university.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1349231
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1349231
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10984-021-09392-9
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 917
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Integrated Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coeducation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Private Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Gender Differences among Students Undertaking iSTEM Projects in Multidisciplinary vs Unidisciplinary STEM Classrooms in Government vs Nongovermnment Schools: Classroom Emotional Climate and Attitudes
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McLure, Felicity I.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Koul, Rekha B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fraser, Barry J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1387-1579
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1855
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 25
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Environments Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1