International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 20: 319–338, 1998.  1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Promoting female achievement in the sciences: Research & implications JUDY LUPART & CHARLENE BARVA Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

Abstract. It is anticipated that by the year 2000 Canadian women will make up approximately 50% of the Canadian labour force. Despite this seemingly positive trend toward equitable genderbased participation in the labour force, females are extremely under represented in the scientific and technological fields (Statistics Canada, 1993). Females who are excluded or exclude themselves from the study of mathematics and science, limit career options and advancement opportunities in areas that drive and dominate social and economic trends. The underutilization of females in careers dependent upon science and mathematics expertise extends beyond the issue of individual actualization of potential, and has important consequences for society; significantly, as a threat to the economic prosperity of the nation. The key questions associated with this problem are: What are the factors which delimit and enhance female participation and achievement in the sciences? What can counsellors, educators and parents do to change this trend? Previous research has explored several dimensions, however, the greatest emphasis has been given to the particular barriers girls and women face. Relatively limited work has been given to factors associated with female success in the sciences. This paper reviews our current understanding of the problem, and describes a current research study that attempts to address some of the problems associated with previous theory and research in this area.

Introduction Knowledge of mathematics and the sciences is essential to procure high-status and well-paid jobs in a technologically advanced work force (Chipman, Brush & Wilson, 1985). However, studies have shown that females’ mathematics and science achievement has not been equivalent to males and that females have not elected to participate in advanced math and science courses or in mathematics/science-related careers at a level commensurate with males (Wilson, 199l). Recent studies show that females’ social learning and beliefs about themselves with regard to mathematics have been particularly detrimental (Clewell, Anderson & Thorpe, 1992). Moreover, lower achievement and participation of females in mathematics- and science-related careers is partially the cause of the economic problems faced by many women who continue to be relegated to low-level, low-status, and low-pay jobs (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). While it can be argued that mathematics/science achievement and participation should be increased for everyone, as Sells (1980) has remarked, mathematics and science act as a “critical filter,” keeping many

320 women out of a variety of careers because they lack the necessary mathematics/science background, and thus, from competing effectively in the workplace. Arresting this trend appears to require significant attention during grade school and throughout post-secondary years.

Relevant factors through to high school completion Previous research has shown that young females experience many critical barriers to the development and maintenance of interest and expertise in the sciences. One of these barriers is in the area of negative attitudes and perception. It is generally accepted that school girls’ achievement in math and science in the elementary grades is equivalent to that of male peers, however, as they reach the junior high school years these positive attitudes begin to decline (James & Smith, 1985). Factors affecting females’ attitudes include a poor self-concept as a “doer” of math or science; their negative perception of the utility of these subjects in “real life;” the stereotyping of math and science as white, male activities; and the influence of significant others, such as parents, teachers, and peers, in discouraging participation in these subjects (Foster, 1992). Kahle and Lakes (1983) report that for young females, math and science fail to instill feelings of confidence, success, or curiosity. Bossert (198l) states that females often internalize societal messages that mathematics and science are inappropriate, “unfeminine” activities. In addition, Crawford and Gentry (1989) found that females experience a strong conflict between interest in math and science and popularity, especially with males. Moreover, gifted females are reported to show greater self-confidence in reading over math ability, despite the fact that they do not indicate lower confidence in their math ability over their male peers (Eccles & Harold, 1992). Parental expectations can also affect girl’s performance. Eccles (1987) conducted a study on the effects parental beliefs and expectations have on their children, and found that a lack of parental expectations and encouragement for females to excel in these subjects contributes to lower performance. Parents tend to believe and communicate the message that males do better in math/ science and to feel that math/science is more difficult for adolescent females than for adolescent males, and therefore girls are not encouraged to pursue study in these areas. In addition, parents’ attitudes towards sex roles influence the attitudes of their children. These attitudes, in turn, relate to the actual choices that their children make (Eccles, 1987) as well as to the conflict gifted females are likely to experience (Noble, 1987). For example, math and science are thought of as male subjects; as a result, the female student is likely to receive little encouragement in pursuing these subjects. Moreover, Raymond and Benbow (1989) found that fathers were more likely to help their children in math and science than were mothers and this difference in parental behavior could influence boys’ and girls’ interest in the sciences. Instructional strategies and materials typically used in math and science

321 classes are often incompatible with the learning styles of females and can lead to poor test performance. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule (1986), for example, found that females tend to enhance objective knowledge by using intuition and self-understanding to give such knowledge personal relevance, whereas the traditional male model establishes “truth” by objective, dispassionate methods. Textbooks in math and/or science tend to be heavily genderstereotyped, with higher frequencies of men and boys in both text and pictures, and role-restricted portrayals of girls and women. Moreover, they have tended to depict a non-active role for girls and women. Ware, Steckler and Lesserman (1985) state that the current texts are written by men with examples heavily slanted toward the male experience, and women are left on their own to draw conclusions as to why they are “missing persons.” While this may seem like a minor point, it could be sending the message to girls that math/science is not for them, so they need not expend much effort on it. Differential treatment in the promotion of independence and gender-stereotyped feedback by teachers may seriously hinder girls in their math and science ability development. For example, Sadker and Sadker (1994) found that males received more teacher attention than females, as well as more precise, informative responses; girls were rewarded for sitting quietly. More importantly, while the males were becoming increasingly proficient at problem solving and working independently, the females were becoming increasingly proficient at computational, rule-bound tasks and more dependent on the teacher. In support of the above findings, Barba and Cardinale (1991) studied teacher response to 307 students ranging from grade 7 to 12, and found that females received less attention and had fewer interactions with the teacher than their male counterparts. Moreover, analysis of questions posed in the classroom using Bloom’s Taxonomy, revealed that females were asked 31% of lower level questions and 19% of high level questions. Thus, it appears females receive less of both quantity and quality of teacher time. As Wilson (1991) notes “girls are the quiet losers in school and boys the boisterous winners” (p. 87). We can conclude from these studies that as a result of this gender-typical shaping, girls exhibit little confidence in their mathematics and science abilities, and as a consequence, may have lower expectations for future success in math and science. Failure to participate in higher-level math and science courses in high school is another significant barrier for female pursuit of science training and careers. Many females do not perceive these subjects as helpful to their future educational and career plans. They view these subjects as difficult and the amount of effort necessary to do well in them as just not worthwhile (Eccles, 1994). Additionally, females think that taking these courses might hamper their social relationships with males and/or make them appear masculine (Fennema & Leder, 1990). Females have been observed to have fewer opportunities in science classes to use scientific apparatus, to engage in problem-solving, and to perform hands-on activities, than their male peers (Rand & Gibb, 1989). Another relevant factor is that males more frequently

322 have early extracurricular experiences (playing with mathematical or scientific games/toys) that develop mechanical inquisitiveness and skills. Females typically have few play experiences that build spatial and physical concepts; their play experiences tend to be stationary, stimulating little interest in understanding natural laws that govern the physical world (Hensel, 1989). Finally, there is a shortage of female role models teaching the advanced math and science courses, that has a major impact on female student’s math and science course-taking patterns (Blair & Lupart, 1996). Thus, it appears that in schools there is a certain kind of learning environment that is not particularly conducive to most females’ motivation to study math and/or science; and the typical changes most students experience in the transition to junior high schools may be particularly inappropriate, given the developmental needs of these students for student decision making, more choice and self-management (Eccles, Midgley, Buchanan, Reuman, Flanagan & MacIver, 1993). Instead, prominent characteristics of typical classes include an emphasis on competence and skill proficiency, social comparison, rote learning, and domination of teacher-student interaction by a few students. As a result of these experiences young women develop less confidence in their math abilities, less interest in studying math and/or science, and less interest in pursuing careers in math and science-related fields (Kerr, 1994). Unfortunately, this trend becomes notably more pronounced as females enter into post-secondary programs, where they continue to run up against discriminatory attitudes and practices. Consequently, this has a compounding detrimental impact on their pursuit of science and/or math-related careers (Eccles, 1994). Clearly, the status quo is unacceptable. Direct measures at the high school level or even sooner, it seems, are called for.

How can we change the cycle? The current literature targets many areas within the home and school culture that can be modified to provide greater support for females in pursuit of science-based interests and expertise. Before these can be adequately summarized though, it is important to mention a significant bias in current research and theory. Much of our current understanding is based on a deficit-driven view of female achievement and competence. Basically, this research focus has been directed toward comparison studies of males and females and the identification of factors that can account for the consistent finding of superior performance of males in science and math subjects. Hence, we know a great deal more about what is happening that shouldn’t be happening in our homes and schools, than we know about what accounts for the success of females identified by their high achievement in the sciences, and the programs that facilitate such success. Clearly, we cannot see the complete picture, until a balance is struck. Three areas of investigation may hold particular promise in this regard:

323 (1) gifted females and achievement; (2) programs designed to promote science interest and expertise; and (3) new models of female achievement and new theories that pose differential thinking and learning styles for females. Each of these areas will be briefly reviewed in the following sections.

Gifted females and achievement Although approximately equal numbers of boys and girls are identified as being gifted, the number of identified gifted women decreases significantly compared with the number of identified gifted men (Callahan, 1980). Longterm studies of gifted individuals (Terman, 1954) have targeted some of the critical differences in the lives of males and females over the life-span, and studies of gifted females (Kerr, 1985) have been instrumental in delineating the significant internal and external barriers that work against females reaching their full potential. In a longitudinal study of gifted men and women, Card, Steel and Abeles (1980) found that at age 23 the women had higher income, higher job prestige, and higher job satisfaction than the men, but by age 29 the men had surpassed the women on all of these variables even though the two groups had equal potential at age l4 as measured by grades and academic aptitude composites. Similarly, Kerr (1985) found, in her study with gifted females, that although these women had attained higher grades than their male counterparts, by adolescence they had lower career aspirations which was later reflected in lower achievement levels. Even though these kinds of seminal works have been most helpful in a pragmatic sense, current leaders in the field are suggesting the need for a reinterpretation of these findings, and that present criteria for success may need serious review. Many studies have been conducted to determine why the incidence of gifted females decreases notably with increasing age. One primary concern emerging from the literature relates to whether women actually “lose” their giftedness, or whether the criteria used to describe gifted adults hold the same importance or relevance for many gifted women as they do for gifted men. Another significant aspect of this reduction in numbers is whether gifted women themselves consider, believe, or are concerned about whether they are underachieving. If females believe that they have the potential and the desire to achieve more, what are the barriers that prevent gifted females from developing or realizing their potential? How is it that some gifted females are able to overcome barriers which block the achievement of others? Finally, what are the factors that facilitate gifted women’s career development? One recent trend in the gifted literature may help us to resolve some of the above-mentioned issues and questions. Many psychologists, cognitive scientists and, to a lesser extent, educators have moved away from a narrow Intelligence Quotient based definition of giftedness. The researchers contributing to the Sternberg and Davidson (1986) publication, Conceptions of Giftedness, indicate the extent to which the field has moved beyond the belief

324 that giftedness is synonymous with having a high I.Q. or that intelligence is what intelligence tests measure, to a view of giftedness as multi-faceted. The consensus emerging is that giftedness must be viewed from a broader perspective than high achievement, as indicated on psychometric instruments, and that multiple talent areas need to be recognized and assessed. The possibility for different but equally valued areas of talent realization for females and males is implied in this expanded conceptualization. Acceptance of a multi-faceted view of giftedness, implies the need for alternative identification methods (Lupart, 1992; Richert, 1991). Multiple sources, multiple measures, self-surveys, identification/programming confluence, and equitable utilization of academic achievement data are a few of the features needed to correspond with our changing conceptualizations of giftedness. As this body of research and literature grows, so does the literature concerning gender and giftedness. Researchers have been exploring how gender impacts upon both identification of a student as gifted (Callahan, 1980; Crombie, Bouffard-Bouchard & Schneider, 1992) and how gender impacts upon that student’s achievement in school settings and in later life (Piirto, 1991; Silverman, 1991; Kerr, 1985, 1994). Callahan’s (1991) review of the literature concludes that gifted girls are still not achieving at levels that would be expected and they are not choosing career options commensurate with their abilities. In support, Kerr’s (1985) study revealed that the adults lives of gifted women were little different from women of average intelligence, and that the majority had pursued “disposable” careers such as teaching and nursing. Many researchers point out that effective counselling and mentoring would have a significant positive impact on the achievement of gifted girls (Hollinger & Fleming, 1992; Walker, Reis & Leonard, 1992). As a promising beginning to new research and practice direction, it must be recognized that adolescence is intensified by giftedness (Eccles & Harold, 1992; Runions & Smyth, 1985) and gender significantly impacts upon adolescent development (Hargreaves & Earl, 1992). For gifted girls, preadolescence and adolescence becomes a critical time when they need to be encouraged both to keep their options open and to strive to maximize their intellectual potential. The research findings of Gilligan, Lyons and Hanmer (1990) suggest that adolescence is a time when girls are in danger of losing their voices and thus losing connection with others. They recommend that intervention programs for gifted adolescents, and gifted women in particular, should be carried out in single sex settings and that it is important to identify and develop ongoing support networks as a part of their programming. Further, Reis (1995) found many gifted females were encouraged by their families to do well in school, but not to channel these efforts into careers or further education, unless, however, these efforts were combined with having a family. In a similar vein, Eccles and Harold (1992) report that parents, teachers, counsellors, and peers remain a significant influence in females’ decision-making, particularly gifted females. Not surprisingly, these influences reflect traditional female life choices, and consequently they do not lead

325 females toward considering math and science expertise as valuable and important, or to pursue more advanced training in these areas, and, accordingly, the full range of occupational options open to them. Overall, the literature in this area is consistent in stressing the point that gifted adolescents need assistance and encouragement to keep their options open in the fields of science technology and mathematics, and consequently, innovative interventions need to be examined.

Intervention programs in the sciences The literature contains many examples of programs to meet the needs of gifted pupils and to encourage the development of female students in sciences and technology. Some are gender-segregated to promote the achievement of young women; some are co-educational. Some are subject/interest specific; some are multiple interest areas. Some are short-term, one-shot programs; some are long-term. Most tend to be either school or community based. What follows are but a few examples. In Canada, the Nova Scotia Women’s Directorate (1992) published a summary of programs at the school, post-secondary, and community level that promote the participation of girls and women in math and science. Of the 92 programs included in the directory, 51 were geared toward school-age students, many at the junior high level. A large variety of programs were reported including “hands-on activities, mentoring, job shadowing, group discussions, special luncheons and dinners, workshops and seminars” (p. 5). It is noted that a significant concern with the programs that were identified was that most were offered only once or twice and then dropped, significantly disrupting any continuity for interested females. Moreover, the majority of programs had no means of evaluation, making it impossible to determine what impact, if any, these programs were having for girls and women. It would seem that, important as the above mentioned document is in identifying numerous initiatives to support girls and women in developing interests in math and science in Canada, it is really only a small step in terms of comprehensive actions required to make a difference. In the United States, we see a similar diversity of approaches. For example, Metz (1992) described “ECOES: A Summer Engineering and Science Program for High School Women,” where young women work in labs with positive role models. Singh (1990) reported on a summer enrichment program at Stillman College (Alabama) which was successful in improving the student performance and increasing the student motivation of minority students to pursue mathematics and science. Moore and Betts (1989) described an enrichment program of two weeks in duration for early adolescents (ages 10–15), where the counsellors saw the social impact, not performance, as being greater. Reese (1989) outlined the “Creative Adventures and Valuable Experience through Spelunking” as adolescents participated in classroom

326 based and field based studies of caves in Arkansas. Dorsel and Wages (1993) report that in examining satisfaction with a residential program of Science and Technology for gifted students, parents were slightly more positive than the students. Finally, there have been a number of research studies carried out on programs to encourage the achievement of traditionally underrepresented groups in the fields of mathematics and sciences. In their publication, Breaking the Barriers: Helping Female and Minority Students Succeed in Mathematics and Sciences, Clewell, Anderson and Thorpe (1992) explore intervention strategies and review ten intervention program models – nine of which are targeted primarily at encouraging minority students – Black and Hispanic – to achieve. These intervention strategies are targeted, for the most part, to middle-school students (students in grades 4 through 8) and target career awareness as well as skill-building as significant components. Starting encouragement early and working on both skill-building and the creation of support networks are important features. These programs, and the many others described in the literature, tend to feature common characteristics and limitations. Most of these programs are identified for a small group of students, are limited to a few areas of expertise and tend to be locally implemented. The programs tend to be the result of the interest of a university faculty member or the decision of an employee of another institution, often government-driven, to generate either funding or to create a research site. As a result, funding tends to be problematic especially in times of economic constraint. Program composition is similar. The programs tend to have both affective and cognitive foci; intergenerational contacts; and have academic, arts and social components with few links (other than student placements, funding and consultation) directly to business and industry. While entrepreneurship is celebrated in the literature as being very significant to the development of gifted students (Mann, 1992; Sisk, 1992) few practical examples exist of students being exposed to these skills. Where they do exist, they tend to operate as an option within the regular school program, in a co-operative education mode, where students spend some part of their time in school and some part of their time in the world of work. Although many of these programs can support their success with glowing reports from participants, parents and teachers, few have included any significant evaluation component nor have they been the subject of longitudinal research studies. Generally, the literature reveals some critical gaps with respect to factors and programming interventions that serve to maximize female interest and pursuit of science. Moreover, most studies of young females and science achievement have failed to incorporate expanded theories and models of thinking and development that have had a radical effect on recent adult research on gender differences.

327 Contemporary theory and research The question of why women are underrepresented in the traditional maledominated fields of mathematics and science has been revisited in recent theory and research and some new perspectives are emerging (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1986; Eccles, 1994; Gilligan, 1982). For example, Gilligan (1982) has highlighted sex differences between men and women in their moral orientations. Womens’ moral ethic, based on attachment, interdependence, caring, and relationship-oriented thinking, comes out short when measured against a male standard. This subtle form of sex discrimination against females is particularly marked in the traditionally “masculine” areas of mathematics and the theoretical sciences where the structure of knowledge is male-stream. In order to understand women’s lives, one must recognize that in comparison to men, women have a different value system than men, one that is relational in nature. Gilligan (Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Gilligan, 1982) focuses on the different voice associated with females and describes standard psychological theories of human development as having been based on observations of men. She believes women were compared to this standard and judged deficient. Gilligan suggests a new look at that voice, one which considers it not deficient but simply different. Thus, Gilligan’s theory points to a striking asymmetry between girls’ and boys’ development, and to one which has clear implications within the broader domain of education for preventing suffering and fostering development in girls. In a similar vein, Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule (1986) set out to expand existing theoretical conceptions of human thought by attending to the voices of women. They argued that women’s “ways of knowing” are different than men’s and that they typically are devalued by the educational/business institutions and measures that men have devised. According to Belenky et al. (1986) women have a different way of understanding and experiencing the world, one which is based on a sense of connection and affiliation to others. Men, on the other hand, are more concerned with separation and autonomy. These perspectives influence what each gender will consider an appropriate career choice, a choice that will lead to personal satisfaction and fulfillment. Another important contribution in the area of female achievement, has been the Eccles Expectancy-Value Model of Achievement Choices and their associated research findings (Eccles, 1985, 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1994; Eccles & Jacobs, 1986). Over several years, Eccles and her colleagues have proposed and tested a model of achievement choice that “links achievement-related beliefs, outcomes, and goals to interpretive systems like causal attributions, to the input of socializers (primarily parents and teachers), to gender-role beliefs, to self-perceptions and self-concept, and to one’s perceptions of the task itself ” (Eccles, 1994, p. 587). Two key constructs in this comprehensive model are expectancy for success and the subjective value of

328 the task for the individual. Their research has shown that expectancy for success is affected by an individual’s specific beliefs and interpretations pertaining to ability, aptitudes, tasks, and past events. Values are mediated by the person’s goals, self-schemata, perception of needs, role identity and input of significant others. This interactive framework emphasizes that each of these psychological variables and their determining factors are shaped by social forces and cultural conditioning. The significance of this model for research on gender differences and achievement patterns, is that it moves away from traditional perspectives that question, “Why aren’t women more like men?” to “Why do women and men make the choices they do?” Eccles and Harold (1992) highlight this subtle but significant shift in stating: “by legitimizing the choices of both men and women, it allows us to look at sex differences from a choice perspective rather than a deficit perspective” (p. 8). Thus, the model captures a significant reality for contemporary females; that choices are not necessarily career or vocational-driven alone; rather, it seems, females make decisions on the basis of multiple roles and values, and tend to place family above career (Eccles, 1994). In summary, despite these new expanded notions of intelligence and achievement, an array of special intervention programs in the sciences, and new theories/models on women’s psychological and career development, the reality is that girls and women today continue to be discussed in comparison to men. The goals and achievements of professional males and their lifestyles are the yard-sticks by which gifted women are measured and measure themselves (Silverman, 1986). Before much progress can be anticipated, we need to know more about the lives and limitations experienced by females gifted in the sciences and more about the motivations and expectancies that affect actual university course and program selection and ultimate choice in career, vocational and avocational goals, and life-roles.

A study of high achieving females and the Shad Valley Program In this section we describe an on-going research study that attempts to eliminate many of the problems outlined previously. The study is a fifteen year retrospective examination of gifted males and particularly females who have been identified in high school for their high achievement and strong potential in the sciences. Specifically this research focuses on the Shad Valley Program; it’s impact on post-secondary training and adult career choice and/or occupational decision-making differences and similarities among successful applicants and cohorts; and the impact of partnerships with business and related work experience. The Shad Valley program is dedicated to building bridges between industry and education, especially in the areas of technology and entrepreneurship, and has one primary and two secondary objectives. The primary objective of the program is motivational. Shad Valley seeks to give participants an apprecia-

329 tion of their true potential, and to encourage them to strive for the highest levels of achievement. The secondary objectives involve technology and entrepreneurship. Shad Valley gives participants a hands-on experience in science and technology, broadening their horizons, and concomitantly, the program seeks to stimulate participants’ entrepreneurial spirit. A unique element in the program is sponsorships. The majority of the students who attend the program are sponsored by corporations which are solicited across Canada. After spending the four weeks at one of the eight participating universitybased Shad Valley programs, the sponsored students enter a co-op type experience with their sponsors. The sponsors finance the attendance of the students to the Shad program and subsequently pay their wages as summer employees. All students pay a fee to attend the program, part of which is to subsidize approximately twenty-five percent of the students who are not sponsored. Admission to the program is competitive. Every year information is sent to all secondary schools across Canada in the fall. The schools’ Special Services (Guidance and Special Education) staff oversee the application process. Generally, three students apply for each student accepted and there has been a 50/50 split along gender lines of the applicants accepted. The program has been in operation since 1981, and there are currently over 3,000 Shad graduates scattered across the country and around the world. In view of the unique features of the Shad Valley program, there are three primary contributions to the literature that the present research can make. First, in it’s application process, Shad Valley has been at the forefront in implementing comprehensive and multi-faceted procedures, a trend that has only recently been promoted in the gifted identification literature (Lupart, 1992; Richert, 1991). In addition to the traditional school-based measures of achievement, applicants to the Shad Valley Program provide examples of their creative productivity, their business and organizational experience, their skills in mathematics and computer science, and their involvement in school and community. Applicants are responsible for having their teachers supply examples of their unique character and abilities, focused motivation, creative thinking, interpersonal skills, class rankings, and finally, recommendations for Shad program involvement. Thus, access to this kind of database on gifted males and females from 1981 to the present can significantly inform current identification practices in both schools and industry. Next, the Shad Valley program has maintained a consistent format and focus on science, entrepreneurship, and technology since the inception in 1981, though continuous development and improvement has been monitored by the Shad International Headquarters in Waterloo. Consequently, the research data should make a significant contribution to the literature on effective programming. An analysis of the experiences of these highly able males and females will be one of the first available comprehensive, long-term, nationally-based science enrichment program studied in the US and Canada. As such, the findings should carry substantial weight in the design and delivery of future programs of this sort.

330 Finally, long-term studies of gifted individuals (Terman, 1954) have targeted some of the critical differences in the lives of males and females over the life-span, and studies of gifted females (Kerr, 1985, 1994) have been instrumental in delineating the significant internal and external barriers that work against females reaching their full potential. However, in the absence of an integrated conceptual framework, the work gives limited direction for productive change, and female success. The present study uses Eccles Expectancy-Value Model of Achievement Choices, that has been substantially developed and validated to investigate the sources that contribute to the dynamic interaction of achievement-related decisions and career choice. Very briefly, the purpose of the present research is to examine the key personal and educational factors that contribute to high achievement in the sciences by gifted males and females, the factors favorable to the pursuit of programs and careers in science and related disciplines, and, in particular, the impact of the Shad Valley program on the advancement of interest and expertise for females gifted in the sciences. The major components of this research are (1) a content analysis of 600 randomly selected Shad Valley program application forms, (2) in-depth questionnaires of former Shad participants and their cohorts, and (3) in-depth telephone interviews of former Shad participants and their cohorts. The first stage of this funded research project is completed and will be described here along with the summary for stages 2 and 3 of the study. First stage. The major activity during the first stage was an in-depth analysis of application forms for males and females since the Shad program inception. The total number of participant and cohort applications available was approximately 7,000. The total sample for this component of the study consisted of 600 randomly selected individuals from the application pool. A random sample of 100 Shad Valley applicants who participated in the Shad Valley program and 100 non-participating, qualified applicants at three different phases including years 1981–1985, 1986–1990, and 1991–1995 was selected. The first task was to analyze this sample of the applications and determine which items should be input for analysis. The analysis of the year one data was carried out on the basis of two comparative groups; (1) Male and Female, and (2) Shad Participants and Cohorts. Second stage. Stages two and three of the research program focus on the investigation of factors (i.e., abilities, aptitudes, past events, self-schemata, perception of needs, role identity, and input of significant others) that influence achievement-related decisions and related consequences using the model developed by Eccles and her associates (1985, 1986a, 1986b, 1987; Eccles & Jacobs, 1986). The total sample for stage 2 of the study will consist of approximately 180 randomly selected individuals from the initial, stage one application pool. Two groups of subjects (participants [n = 30] and qualified non-participants [n = 30] in the Shad program) will be drawn for the years

331 1981 to 1985; 1986 to 1990; and 1991 to 1995, and there will be equal representation of males and females. Participants will be drawn from the Western provinces, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces. Three questionnaires (University of Michigan, Study of Adolescent Life Transitions [adapted]; Values Scale; and The Salience Inventory) will be mailed out to all stage two participants. Stage three. For the third phase of the data collection, in-depth interviews (approximately 75), based on Eccles Model, in combination with relevant factors emerging from the year one analysis, will be carried out over the telephone. Data will be tape recorded and transcribed. A research assistant qualified and/or trained in interview analysis will analyze all interview data using the eight stages for organizing data suggested by Tuckman (1994).

Stage one findings Detailed results of the first stage of this study will be reported elsewhere, however, some of the significant gender related findings from stage one of the study follow. In the final analysis, 576 subject applications were studied; 283 of the subjects had participated in Shad Valley Program and are labeled as experimental group; and 293 were applicants not accepted for the Shad Valley Program and are labeled as control group. There was a three-fold purpose for the first phase of study: (1) a descriptive analysis of about 100 variables in each application form in order to form a data base; (2) an analysis of differences between control group and experimental group in different variables to identify the educational and personal factors pertaining to high achievement; and (3) an analysis of differences between males and females on selected variables. Each application form had 4 main parts: (1) general information (application year, city and province of residence, birth date, sex, bilingualism, preferred language, aboriginality); (2) grades in different subjects in the two last years of high school along with teachers’ and principals’ comments; (3) other questions such as science, engineering, and computer experience, attitude towards math, activities in and out of school, favorite books and magazines, number of awards received, musical instruments played; and (4) a 25 item sub-questionnaire on personal characteristics and academic and social behavior of students. The significant differences between males and females are presented in Table 1. No significant age difference was observed between males and females. Also no significant difference was observed between males and females in teacher’s rating on students’ academic rank. However, females’ grade point average (GPA) was significantly higher than males’ GPA. In three courses (English, French, and Social Studies) females’ scores were significantly higher, and in two courses (Physics and Computers) males’ scores were

332 Table 1. Comparison of males and females in academic achievement Mean

SD

T

Probability

88.43 89.65

4.39 5.96

3.37

0.001

92.20 90.10

2.04 1.65

4.46

0.028

84.52 87.40

7.03 6.03

5.00

0.000

85.56 88.64

7.37 5.75

5.09

0.000

90.77 89.38

5.61 5.80

2.55

0.011

88.02 90.26

6.86 5.05

4.25

0.000

GPA Male Female Computers Male Female English Male Female French Male Female Physics Male Female Social studies Male Female

significantly higher than females’ scores. There was no significant difference in math scores between males and females. Also teachers’ rating on totals for 25 educational and personal characteristics of subjects was not significantly different for males and females. There was no significant difference between males and females in science and engineering experience. However males had significantly more experience with computers. Teacher ratings of student characteristics also revealed some interesting, gender-specific differences as indicated in Table 2.

Conclusion In summary, this research supports the objective of identifying the key factors which influence girls to pursue science and math in school and making career choices. The availability of a data base generated over several years on girls who participated in the Shad Valley program and those who did not has the potential to significantly inform and direct future programs and research. In addition, the proposed in-depth questionnaires and interviews, as well as the examination of the business partnership influence on gifted girls and subse-

333 Table 2. Differences in characteristics as rated by teachers (greater values indicated in bold)

Organizes his/her work well Strives toward perfection Sensitive to duty Accepts and exercises responsibility Creative in practical problem solving Good in problem solving Creative responses Enjoys discussing scientific topics

Male

Female

P

3.78 3.54 3.03 4.68 4.46 4.76 4.46 4.62

3.92 3.75 3.49 4.82 4.2 4.57 4.08 4.41

0.021 0.014 0 0.037 0.023 0.007 0 0.007

quent choices in science fields, provides us with an opportunity to address some of the key questions relevant to the promotion of science literacy, particularly for females: What influence do parents and teachers have on female students career choices? How can we increase parent’s, teacher’s, and school counsellor’s awareness of the benefits of careers in science? How can we motivate parents, teachers and counsellors to encourage young females to consider non-traditional careers? Why do some girls persist in the math and sciences? What is the role of parents and family background in making choices? How influential are schools in motivating girls to take math and science classes? Do partnerships with business and related work experiences facilitate career choices is science fields? Concluding, the challenge will be for education (and the home) to implement practices consistent with a broader view of life-role decisions and achievement. Rather than stressing an individualistic approach to achievement by which some students excel while others fail and suffer shame and recrimination, there should be an emphasis on responsibility for others, communication, and caring. This latter direction would not dilute cognitive standards, but would recognize that humane interrelationships can contribute to school life, most notably in the areas of math and science where girls are underrepresented and misrepresented. Thus, the relational bias in women’s thinking that has, in the past, been seen to compromise their moral judgment and impede their development now begins to emerge in a new developmental light.

Implications for counselling practice Incorporating the importance of the relational component of identity into a new definition of career achievement has major implications for the practice of career counselling with gifted young women. First, the work of Gilligan (1982) on the different value systems of men and women implies a need to restructure career counselling interventions. There has traditionally been an emphasis on academic and vocational attainments, and more specifically, on paid work as the only arena for career achievement. Career achievement has

334 been restricted to advancement along a career ladder in a stable, permanent occupational role where success is measured by the achievement of status, in the form of financial security, prestige, respectability and positions of power over others, and where the structure of work has required independent effort in a competitive atmosphere (Hashizume & Crozier, 1994). This definition of career achievement has influenced how women’s patterns of career development and their choices regarding achievement have been viewed. However, contrary to the manner in which most interventions are structured, the mutually exclusive work role may no longer be sufficient for measuring the success or achievement in bright women. Career counselling can no longer view the work role in isolation from other life roles, but must realize that most women consider work as only one of the areas in which they wish to achieve (Hashizume & Crozier, 1994). According to these researchers, women’s career development is far more complex than that of men, and utilizing a new definition of achievement in career counselling will recognize the individual’s values and right to choice. Furthermore, this type of career counselling would recognize the validity of multiple outlets for achievement desires and would assist clients to find a comfortable balance of achievement across a range of life roles. Therefore, any counselling work should include a discussion of options and a consideration of balance; young women should be encouraged to think about what is important to them and to realize that a possibility exists for combining what they value with a meaningful career. At the same time, they should also realize that it may not be possible to combine some professional careers with a happy marriage, the raising of children, and the care of a home and family. Counsellors need to encourage women to explore how their abilities, talents, values, and attributes can best be realized and in which life roles. In addition, counsellors need to provide support for females to continue in mathematics so that career options will not be prematurely and unnecessarily restricted, and to support interest in both nontraditional/traditional careers in order to allow women freer choice across the job spectrum. A second important implication for career counselling practice with young women arises from the counsellor’s own attitudes about sex roles and research on females’ unique problems. The relationship between math and science avoidance and sex-role stereotyping has a strong impact on the career development of bright young females. Career development begins at an early age, and as noted elsewhere in this paper, socialization and educational processes can either strengthen or weaken stereotypes, depending on the attitudes and actions of individuals involved with females. Counsellors need to be aware of the gender-bias and stereotyping still prevalent in interest inventories and aptitude achievement tests which perpetuate stereotyped roles and limited options for women (Callahan, 1980). Counsellors should use materials to expand a women’s range of options such as the use of nonsexist inventories, and gender-neutral occupational information. Furthermore, counsellors need to carefully scrutinize their own biases, beliefs and expectations toward girls

335 and women such that in this self-examination process counsellors can come to fully respect the capabilities of bright young women as well as to support their aspirations in career choice. If counsellors acknowledge the connectedness females seek, reinforce the social skills females display, and encourage more risk taking, then there may be less need for women to fight the conformity and the traditional stereotyping that plagues them (Leroux, 1994). The third important implication for career counselling practice in the area of relational achievement is related to counsellor advocacy. Gilbert (1985) states that an advocacy role is needed to change the structure of work and the underlying values which exclude women from experiencing a sense of achievement. There is a place for career counsellors to be advocates to change some of the existing structures of education and work so as to allow for this alternative definition of achievement to be viable. However, according to recent research, school counsellors continue to reflect attitudes and genderstereotypes that are detrimental to the expression of the abilities and talents of bright girls (Noble, 1987). Therefore, counsellors may need to be retrained to believe that it is desirable to encourage girls interested and able in mathematics or science to pursue courses in these areas, to support girls’ enrollment in Advanced Placement and discipline-specific accelerated programs, to advise girls of opportunities in all areas of industry and the professions, and to aid gifted females in pursuing excellence. The value of this approach by counsellors can then be shared with parents who put ceilings on their daughters’ achievements. Re-education of society must begin in areas where the impact can be prompt and most effective. School counsellors play a pivotal role in either encouraging or discouraging development of gifted females. The challenge for all society, and particularly for counsellors, is to provide an environment that is supportive of women and girls, allowing them to develop to their full potential as equally valued and contributing members of society. References Barba, R. & Cardinale, L. (1991). Are females invisible students? An investigation of teacherstudent questioning interactions. School Science and Mathematics 91: 306–310. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. V., Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind. New York: Basic Books. Blair, V. & Lupart, J. L. (1996). A study of female persistence and withdrawal from university mathematics programs. Exceptionality Education Canada 6(2): 51–73. Bossert, S. (1981). Understanding sex differences in children’s classroom experiences. Elementary School Journal 81: 254–266. Brown, L. M. & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s Psychology and Girls’ Development. New York: Ballantine Books. Callahan, C. M. (1980). The gifted girl: An anomaly? Roeper Review 2: 16–20. Callahan, C. (1991). Update: Gifted females. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 14 (3): 284–311. Card, J. J., Steele, L. & Abeles, R. P. (1980). Sex differences in realization of potential for achievement. Journal of Vocational Behavior 17: 1–20.

336 Chipman, S. F., Brush, L. R. & Wilson, D. M. (1985). Women and Mathematics: Balancing the Equation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Clewell, B. C., Anderson, B. T. & Thorpe, M. E. (1992). Breaking the Barriers: Helping Female and Minority Students Succeed in Mathematics and Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Crawford, M. & Gentry, M. (1989). Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag. Crombie, G., Bouffard-Bouchard, T. & Schneider, B. (1992). Gifted programs: gender differences in referral and enrollment. Roeper Review 36 (4): 213–214. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Robinson, R. (1986). Culture, time and the development of talent. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 264–284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dorsel, T. & Wages, C. (1993). Gifted residential education outcomes are largely favourable but there are some cautions. Roeper Review 15(4): 239–242. Eccles, J. (1985). Model of students’ mathematics enrollment decision. Educational Studies in Mathematics 16: 311–314. Eccles, J. (1986a). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs 11: 367–380. Eccles, J. (1986b). Gender-roles and women’s achievement. Educational Researcher 15 (6): 15–19. Eccles, J. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly 11: 135–172. Eccles, J. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly 18: 585–609. Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. D. (1992). Gender differences in educational and occupational patterns among the gifted. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & D. L. Ambroson (eds.), Talent Development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 2–30). Toronto: Trillium Press. Eccles, J. & Jacobs, J. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 11: 367–380. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C. & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist 48: 90–101. Fennema, E. & Leder, G. C. (1990). Mathematics and Gender. New York: Teachers College. Foster, V. (1992). Different but equal?: Dilemmas in the reform of girl’s education. Australian Journal of Education 36 (1): 53–67. Gallagher, J. & Courtright, R. (1986). The educational definition of giftedness and its policy implications. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 93–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, L. (1985). Comments on the meaning of work in women’s lives. The Counselling Psychologist 27: 129–130. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, C. Lyons, N. & Hanmer, T. (eds.) (1990). Making Connections: The Relational Worlds of Adolescent Girls at Emma Willard School. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hargreaves, A. & Earl, L. (1992). Rights of Passage. Toronto: Ministry of Education. Hashizume, L. & Crozier, S. D. (1994). A female definition of career achievement. In J. Gallivan, S. D. Crozier & V. M. Lalande (eds.), Women, Girls, and Achievement (pp. 106–120). North York, ON: Captus Press. Hensel, R. A. (1989). Mathematical achievement: Equating the sexes. School Science and Mathematics 89(8): 646–653. Hollinger, C. & Fleming, E. A. (1992). Longitudinal examination of life choices among gifted and talented young women. Roeper Review 36(4): 207–212.

337 James, R. & Smith, S. (1985). Alienation of students from science in grades 4–12. Science Education 69(1): 39–45. Kahle, J. & Lakes, M. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20 (2): 131–140. Kerr, B. (1985). Smart Girls, Gifted Women. Columbus: Ohio Psychology Publishing. Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women: Special guidance concerns. Roeper Review 8: 30–31. Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart Girls Two: A New Psychology of Girls, Women, and Giftedness. Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press. Leroux, J. (1994). A tapestry of values: Gifted women speak out. Gifted Education International 9: 167–171. Lupart, J. L. (1992). The hidden gifted: Current state of knowledge and future research directions. In F. J. Monks & W. A. M. Peters (eds.), Talent for the Future (pp. 177–190). Assen/Maastricht, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum Publishers. Mann, P. H. (1992). Entrepreneurship and the world of small business. G/C/T 15(1): 26– 27. Metz, S. S. (1992). ECOES: A Summer engineering and science program for high school women, G/C/T 14(3): 40–41 Moore, A. D. & Betts, G. T. (1989, October). Evaluation of the 1988 summer enrichment program for the gifted and talented at the University of North Colorado: Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Noble, K. D. (1987). The dilemma of the gifted woman. Psychology of Women Quarterly 11: 367–378. Nova Scotia Women’s Directorate (1992). Expanding Choices: Math and Science Programs for Girls and Women. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Armour & Associates. Piirto, J. (1991). Why are there so few? Roeper Review 13 (3): 142–147. Rand, D. & Gibb, L. H. (1989). A model program for gifted girls in science. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 12(2): 142–155. Raymond, C. L. & Benbow, C. P. (1989). Educational encouragement by parents: Its relationship to precocity and gender. Gifted Child Quarterly 33: 144–151. Reese, R. (1989). Project C.A.V.E.S. Gifted Child Today 12 (5): 41–43. Reis, S. M. (1995). Talent ignored, talent diverted: The cultural context underlying giftedness in females. Gifted Child Quarterly 39: 162–170. Richert, E. S. (1991). Rampant problems and promising practices in identification. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (eds.), Handbook on Gifted Education (pp. 81–96). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Runions, T. & Smyth, E. (1985). Gifted adolescents as co-learners in mentorships. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 8(2): 127–132. Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls. New York: Scribner’s Sons. Sells, L. (1980). The mathematics filter and the education of women. In L. Fox, L. Brody & D. Tobin (eds.), Women and the Mathematical Mystique (pp. 344–354). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Silverman, L. K. (1986). What happens to the gifted girl? In C. June Maker (ed.), Critical Issues in Gifted Education: Defensible Programs for the Gifted (pp. 43–89). Rockville, MD: Aspen. Silverman, L. (1991). Helping gifted girls to achieve their potential. Roeper Review 13 (3): 122–124. Singh, J. (1990). Improving math and science for minority students. Gifted Child Today 13 (2): 6–7. Sisk, D. (1992). Business initiative. G/C/T 15 (1): 8–9. Statistics Canada (1993). Women in the Workplace (2nd ed.). Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.

338 Sternberg, R. & Davidson, J. (eds.). (1986). Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terman, L. (1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist 9: 221–230. Tuckman, B. W. (1994). Conducting Educational Research (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Co. Walker, B., Reis, S. & Leonard, J. (1992). A developmental investigation of the lives of gifted women. Roeper Review 36 (3): 201–206. Ware, N., Steckler, N. & Lesserman, J. (1985). Undergraduate women: Who chooses a science major? Journal of Higher Education 56(1): 72–83. Wilson, M. (199l). Girls and Young Women in Education: A European Perspective. New York: Pergamon Press.