Running head: MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 1

Mentoring Girls in STEM: Increasing Female Students’ Self-Efficacy

Tracy Howse

ISTC 541.450

Fall 2017
MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 2

Abstract

Female students have a lack of self-efficacy regarding STEM courses, activities, and programs.

There will be a greater percentage of girls participating in STEM (Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics) through technology and online mentoring (e-mentoring)

programs. The gender gap prevalent in STEM fields is a difficult barrier to overcome due to

stereotypes and access to role models. Incorporating structured female mentorship programs that

focus on technology mentoring and online mentoring will improve girls’ confidence and overall

participation. Technology mentoring promotes their understanding of STEM, while online or e-

mentoring gives female students the ability to apply these skills. The Faculty Technology

Mentoring programs provide an inspiration for the technology skill mentorship and the Systems-

Based Mentoring Model gives options logistics. The many-to-many mentorship provides girls

with the ability to communicate with a variety of female STEM leaders. Using this structure for

teaching and applying technology will improve the school, community, and STEM fields through

increased participation, interest, and commitment.

Keywords: mentoring, e-mentoring, STEM, girls, self-efficacy

MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 3

Mentoring Girls in STEM: Increasing Female Students’ Participation

Introduction

Improving female students’ self-efficacy in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM) is crucial for increasing participation and future females in STEM careers.

Girls’ interest in STEM courses, activities, and programs starts declining during middle and high

school (Stoeger, 2017). Maintaining and promoting girls’ participation in STEM programs and

careers requires role models. There will be a greater percentage of girls participating in STEM

through technology mentoring and online mentoring (e-mentoring) programs.

Terms

 Faculty Technology Mentoring (FTM): Providing mentorship for faculty members

incorporating technology within their classroom (Baran, 2015).

 Group Mentoring: Multiple mentors and/or multiple mentees collaborating for an increased

exposure to learning, experiences, and opportunities (Stoeger, 2017).

 Online/e-mentoring: A blended or fully electronic form of mentorship (Stoeger, 2017).

 Self-efficacy: A person’s belief and confidence in their ability to achieve tasks or produce

results which affects their probability of achievement (Carey & Forsyth, 2017).

Background

Students’ self-efficacy affects their personal achievements and confidence regarding

tasks or achievements. Yi-hui Liu (2014) explains that gender stereotypes, role models, and self-

efficacy all influence whether female students will pursue STEM careers. A solution to the

gender gap in STEM fields, both within educational and corporate institutions, must include a

way to improve girls’ self-efficacy. Female mentors would help reduce the off-putting
MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 4

stereotypes prevalent in STEM extracurricular activities and classes, which carries over to the

professional field.

Optimal mentoring, according to Heidrun Stoeger (2017), requires successful female

figures, mentorship beginning early in a student’s life, frequent sessions, and mentor/mentee

similarities. When considering the importance of self-efficacy and STEM participation, it is

necessary to analyze all types of mentoring. Traditional face-to-face mentorships and technology

mentoring are the most common current practices, whereas e-mentoring is growing within the

education.

Current Practices

A traditional take on mentorship occurs in most STEM extracurricular activities such as

clubs or after school programs. Jim Jackson writes in An engineering mentor’s take on FIRST

Robotics (2013) about the organization’s mission to engage students in programs through

mentorship programs. These mentors are community members who volunteer time for face-to-

face mentoring via club meetings. Female role models participate in similar clubs, such as

Cynthia Hannah-White. She has written about her experiences mentoring within STEM clubs.

Hannah-White has even gone on to start a nonprofit organization for promoting students’ access

to robotic materials (2012). The tradition of club leaders’/mentors’ and students’ relationships

are prevalent in today’s current extracurricular practices. However, this method has not

necessarily promoted girls in STEM programs. Incorporating strictly female mentorship

relationships through technology and e-mentoring is crucial achieving greater success in bridging

the gender gap.

Faculty Technology Mentoring (FTM) currently occurs in universities which desire a

greater incorporation of technology (Baran, 2015). Professors and faculty become the mentee in
MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 5

this model and work with their mentors for more classroom technology integration. This is a

specific type of mentorship that focuses on the incorporation of technology within educational

institutions. Similar to the traditional mentorship, improving technology accesses within classes

increases all students’ accessibility to achievement, but is not completely sufficient for

promoting girls in STEM. However, if educators and mentors included similar concepts in their

mentorship programs, female students and STEM programs would benefit though greater

participation.

Mentoring for Girls in STEM

Online or e-mentoring is a method which gives girls in STEM the ability to see

themselves within STEM fields. Baran (2015) studied the variety of mentorship programs and

found that large training programs, such as the traditional mentorships for clubs, does not address

individual girls’ needs. Online mentoring, however, gives girls a more personalized experience

and fulfills Stoeger’s requirements for effective mentorships.

This type of mentorship addresses the desire for similarities between mentors and

mentees; students would be able to connect with a wider variety of professionals in their desired

fields or areas of interest. Girls would be able to more easily connect with successful women in

STEM, regardless of their local community’s percentage of women within the field. Overcoming

these distance constraints can also increase the frequency of sessions, since face to face

mentorship can be at least partially computer mediated.

Liu (2014) explains that effective role models inspires learning and actions for those

mentees. He also claims that individuals can achieve a higher self-efficacy through this

relationship. Caryn Long found that e-mentoring positively influenced girls to maintain or

deepen their desire for STEM careers, increased understanding of potential careers, and
MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 6

developed STEM skills (2012). In short, this personalized, online mentorship promotes girls’

future STEM experiences Further incorporation of mentorship for girls in STEM should include

online mentorships.

Looking Forward

Students with low self-efficacy have a lack of confidence which results in reduced

success and decreased participation. Improving the self-efficacy of any student requires

increased understanding and STEM opportunities. The e-mentoring previously described should

incorporate technology mentorship programs for providing such understanding.

If a student is going to gain confidence, they first need a general understanding and skill

set applicable to the topic. Thus, STEM role models should incorporate lessons and sessions on

technology skills such as coding, website creation, and computer basics. Similar to the FTM

programs, students need mentoring for learning technology skills. In doing so, girls would have a

larger understanding of their technological devices and would encounter a variety of STEM

career options. Teaching girls these tools would boost confidence through a feeling of

understanding.

Once basic tech skills are taught, continued technology mentoring and e-mentoring would

promote and maintain their knowledge and skills. Long (2012) explains that including even

simple technology tools such as e-mail improves mentorship communication and successes.

Thus, as the girls become comfortable with more advanced technological tools, e-mentoring

would give them opportunities for incorporating tech into their daily lives. This reinforcement of

information will give them increased proficiency. When considering self-efficacy, girls’

confidence in their abilities will improve; the continued successes will prove their abilities.
MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 7

Although such in-depth mentoring requires resources, volunteers, and time, various mentoring

structures can overcome such barriers.

Solutions

Improving girls’ self-efficacy in STEM is a necessary goal for the betterment of tech-

based industries, educational systems, and society. Reducing barriers eases through technology

mentoring and e-mentoring. Effective tech-based mentorship, however, hinges on structured and

group mentorship programs. Such programs provide students more access to mentors. The

Systems-Based Mentoring Model (SBMM) and group mentorship programs are ways to

incorporate mentoring within schools and ease the difficulties of one-to-one mentoring.

SBMM is a system-based concept which focuses on incorporating mentors within a

child’s (Gokoglu, 2017). In this model, teachers and mentors work together to expand the

parameters of the child’s educational system, providing support to the student and each other.

Through four stages, the teacher and mentor would be able to integrate technology for the child’s

education. These stages include “initial setup,” “teacher preparation,” “curricular focus,” and

“community of practice” (Gokoglu, 2017). The initial setup is an analysis of the necessities for

corporation and success, whereas the teacher preparation is the actual groundwork for

incorporating technology within the classroom. The curricular focus, stage three, is where the

teacher and mentor review and revise current lessons/units. Finally, stage four focuses on a

continued, cooperative support throughout the child’s education.

Once the integration has occurred, both mentors and teachers would be using

corresponding technology, understand the resources, and teach the curriculum in a more

connected and collaborative setting. This model would ease mentors’ difficulties of resources,
MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 8

volunteers, and time since they would be working directly with the students’ teacher, while also

improving a child’s daily education.

The group mentoring structures of one-on-one mentorship may appear to be the most

interactive for students. However, group mentoring programs continue the support of structured

mentorship, while presenting students with a wider variety of resources. There four variations of

group mentoring: one-to-many, many-to-one, peer group, and many-to-many (Stoeger 2017).

One-to-many is where one mentor supports multiple students, whereas many-to-one has multiple

mentors for one student. Peer group mentorship structure focuses on a variety of students

mentoring and promoting learning amongst themselves. Finally, many-to-many is a collection of

mentors and mentees. Peer group mentorship has less strict “mentors/mentee” roles, whereas

many-to-many is a more rigid use of multiple mentees and mentors.

Stoeger studied the results of group and individual mentoring (2017) and found that

communication was greater in group mentoring. One mentor to many students does provide these

individuals with wider resources; the SBMM uses this type of group mentoring when one mentor

works with the students outside of class. However, it spreads one mentor thinner than the one-

on-one mentorship. Many-to-one is a more personalized experience, but also has drawbacks,

such as availability of multiple mentors. The peer mentorship is a more promising solution in the

promotion of collaboration amongst students. Including STEM leaders closer in age would

provide girls with relatable role models. This type of group mentorship also facilitates a large

variety of group discussions about STEM topics and technology skills. However, the individuals

will not necessarily be able to work directly with as many female STEM professionals.

Thus, the many-to-many mentorship program would provide the opportunities for

encountering a variety of mentors and the increased access to peer discussion. Students would
MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 9

also be able to discuss with one mentor of their choosing, which is especially important for a

field as broad as STEM. Through this mentorship structure, female students would have access

to a support system of successful and budding females in a variety of scientific, technological,

and math-related fields. These girls would have an increased self-efficacy and confidence

through learning skills and partaking in a support system.

Conclusion

If female students were able to access mentoring on technology and STEM careers

through a many-to-many structure, their self-efficacy would rise, resulting in a greater

percentage of girls participating in STEM programs. When considering learning, this increased

confidence and participation would improve STEM-related courses through greater class

collaboration. Confidence in this field would also improve teaching: students with higher self-

efficacy are more open to trying activities and assignments. These girls would also be more

comfortable collaborating with their peers.

With such promotion of teaching and learning, schools as a whole would improve.

Increasing female participation does not simply promote girls, but rather gives the school a larger

community committed to these programs. Additionally, the community effort outlined

throughout these structures gives the school community-based involvement in STEM programs

and activities. Thus, incorporating female leaders is a solution for closing the gender gap that

improves all communities connected to the school and STEM.

MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 10

References

Baran, E. (2015). Investigating faculty technology mentoring as a university-wide professional

development model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 45-71.

10.1007/s12528-015-9104-7

Carey, M. & Forsyth, A. (2017). Teaching Tips Sheet: Self-Efficacy. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/education/self-efficacy.aspx

Gokoglu, S., Cakiroglu, U. (2017). Determining the roles of mentors in the teachers’ use of

technology: Implementation of Systems-Based Mentoring Model. Educational Sciences:

Theory & Practice, 17(1), 191-215. 10.12738/estp.2017.1.0234

Hannah-White, C. (2012). Mentoring a high school robotics team. GPSolo 29(1), 42-43.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23630563

Jackson, J. (2013). An engineering mentor’s take on FIRST Robotics. Tech Directions 72(8), 13-

15. Retrieved from http://proxy-

tu.researchport.umd.edu/login?ins=tu&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct

=true&db=f5h&AN=85889652&site=eds-live&scope=site

Liu, Y., Lou, S., Shih, R. (2014). The investigation of STEM self-efficacy and professional

commitment to engineering among female high school students. South African Journal of

Education, 34(2), 1-15. 10.15700/201412071216

Long, C. & Close, Brandy (2012). E-mentoring for k-12 students: Support for NASA virtual

visits. Distance Learning, 9(1), 1-7. Retrieved from http://proxy-

tu.researchport.umd.edu/login?ins=tu&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct

=true&db=ehh&AN=78094099&site=eds-live&scope=site
MENTORING GIRLS IN STEM 11

Stoeger, H., Hopp, M., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Online mentoring as an extracurricular measure to

encourage talented girls in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics):

An empirical study of one-on-one versus group mentoring. Gifted Child Quarterly 61(3),

239-249. 1 0.1177/0016986217702215

Stoeger, H., Duan, X., Schirner, S., Greindl, T., Ziegler, A. (2013). The effectiveness of a one-

year online mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education 69, 408-418.

10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.032