Gender Diversity in STEM: Exploring the Influences on Class

Participation and Academic Achievement

Sheena Mae S. Noble | Carl A. Fuerza | Ana Marie Sabao | Alexa C. Delacruz | Shian Ramie L. Sosing
| Bern Rhebe M. Ortega | Junjun Rebamontan | Exikhiel P. Cabigao

Abstract
This meta-analysis is about gender diversity in STEM by taking the part and perspective of women and
LGBTQ+ people into account. Due to the greater propensity for discrimination and gender inequality that these
groups have shown to experience, they also face a risk disadvantage regarding engagement with and retention in
STEM disciplines. In this paper, we gathered and summarized evidence from several studies to evaluate trends
in classroom composition and the determinants of female and LGBTQ+ students' representation in STEM. This
analysis reviews the barriers to participation and the effectiveness of interventions for diversity enhancement
and underscores the urgent need to change the environment in support of a diverse talent pipeline into STEM.
These results highlight the necessity of continuing efforts to combat discrimination and improve equity,
inclusion, and diversity in the academic and professional climate seen at both U.S. STEM sectors together as a
push toward greater justice and creativity.

Keywords: STEM, Gender Diversity, Class Participation, Academic Achievement

1. Introduction
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), are crucial for economic growth,
innovation, and technological improvement, especially in the twenty-first century (Billing et al., 2023). However,
the gender gap and lack of diversity in STEM areas still exist despite the fields' significance in today's society
(Makarova et al., 2019). The marginalization of LGBTQ people and the underrepresentation of women may have
a detrimental impact on gender diversity and their inclusion in STEM (Stewart, 2019).
Several studies have already concluded the multiple factors influencing the inclusion and participation
of women in STEM fields (Mulvey et al., 2022; Kricorian et al., 2020). Stereotypes, prejudices, and
discrimination are several factors contributing to such inequalities. Although efforts have been established to
increase women’s interest and participation, challenges with equity and inclusion persist in some STEM classes
(Schmader, 2023). Despite the efforts and progress that have been constructed to provide fair opportunities with
unbiased competition, the advancement barrier continues to affect underrepresented minorities, including males
and females (Gichuru, 2024). STEM has commonly been a male-dominated domain, yet disparities in gender
diversity have persisted (Seyranian et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2024). Recent studies now point to gender parity
along racial lines as an avenue for progress toward solutions to world problems. These include current
implementations in the form of mentorship and scholarship programs (Palid et al., 2023). However, to assess the
effectiveness of these programs and determine best practices to encourage diversity and inclusion in STEM,
more quantitative research is desperately needed.
The very question of the differences among gender groups in academic output is much reported and
debated. Recent studies suggest an increased similarity rather than differences in achievement. However,
females tend to attribute grades to effort, whereas males attribute them to ability (Miele et al., 2020). The
underlying factors affecting gender diversity, including implicit bias, marginalization, stereotypes, and identity
safety, will be analyzed and examined to: evaluate the factors affecting gender diversity on academic
achievement and participation rates in STEM from the perspectives of male and female students, highlighting
the potential benefits of a diverse learning environment; illustrate the persistent gender disparities in STEM
despite efforts in recent years; understand how systemic barriers contribute to these inequalities; and advocate
for a diverse and inclusive environment in STEM education and careers. The study intends to accomplish these
objectives to add to its understanding of gender diversity in STEM and to assemble a supportive environment
whereby all students can contribute and flourish in these fields. The results will act as a basis for creating a more
inclusive and supportive environment in STEM careers and education. The researchers aim to identify systemic
barriers, highlight the correlation between gender diversity and academic success, and emphasize the need for
inclusivity in institutional practices to address gender and sexual identity disparities in STEM disciplines. This
meta-analysis examines the importance of STEM students’ gender representation in achieving academic success.
The researchers aim to identify systemic barriers, highlight the correlation between gender diversity and
academic success, and emphasize the need for inclusivity in institutional practices to address gender and sexual
identity disparities in STEM disciplines.

2. Statement of the problem

The researchers would like to seek answers to the following questions:

1. Despite the efforts to achieve a more inclusive and welcoming environment in STEM, do LGBTQ+ and
women still experience marginalization and inequity?

2. What can help to increase the inclusion of female students in STEM?

3. Would greater gender equality in STEM courses lead to higher participation and performance for all students?

3. Methodology
In this meta-analysis, the researchers used the qualitative method to review related academic papers
that examine discrimination against women and the LGBTQ+ community. By analyzing the gathered papers, the
researchers aim to understand gender diversity.

4. Meta-Analysis
In the study done by Nicholas A. Bowman, Christine Logel, Jennifer LaCosse, Lindsay Jarratt,
Elizabeth A. Canning, Katherine T. U. Emerson, and Mary C. Murphy (2022) under the title "Gender
Representation and Academic Achievement Among STEM-Interested Students in College STEM Courses". This
study found the relationship between gender representation, including the number of females enrolled and the
number of female instructors, and achievement in STEM courses in an attempt to identify gaps in gender equity
in these fields. The analysis was based on a sample of 11,958 undergraduates interested in pursuing STEM with
20 colleges and universities included in the investigation; a total of 8,686 unique STEM courses were examined.
This study found the relationship between gender representation, including the number of females enrolled and
the number of female instructors, and achievement in STEM courses in an attempt to identify gaps in gender
equity in these fields.

Secondly, the study titled: Gender Gaps in Achievement and Participation across Multiple Introductory
Biology Classrooms by Sarah L. Eddy, Sara E. Brownell, and Mary Pat Wenderoth (2014) aims to investigate
gender gaps in achievement and participation that emerged among students enrolled in introductory biology
courses despite female students' numerical predominance throughout their undergraduate enrollment.
Determining whether gender gaps occur in these three areas are considered separate outputs at an undergraduate
level within life sciences. The data for analysis come from 23 significant introductory biology courses aimed at
majors. The study follows a quantitative approach, looking at both academic achievement (exam scores) and
participation in whole-class discussions. Females always do worse on exams than their male classmates with the
same overall college grade point averages. Furthermore, there are gender inequities in classroom questioning, as
males are more likely to engage in extensive group responses.

Another research titled "Gender in Academic STEM: A Focus on Men Faculty," by Negin Sattari and
Rebecca L. Sandefur (2019), the study investigates how male faculty construct perceptions about gender's
influence on their experiences in academic STEM disciplines and their positioning about the disparities that
disadvantage women. A qualitative interview study with male faculty in academic STEM disciplines, aimed to
elicit their views on gender in academia. Particularly telling were the mixed perceptions found among men
regarding their perception of barriers that women faced in STEM. While some reported a form of gender
blindness, other male faculty reported benefiting from gender privilege compared with women and described
ways in which gender in subtle ways affects opportunity. The study reveals the imperative for men to hold a
more profound understanding of men's issues as influencing roles in mentoring, colleagues, and educators.

Moreover, the research conducted by Msafiri M. Msambwa, Kangwa Daniel, Cai Lianyu, and Antony
Fute (2024), under the title "A Systematic Review Using Feminist Perspectives on the Factors Affecting Girls'
Participation in STEM Subjects" seeks to search some of the factors influencing the participation of girls in
STEM subjects from feminist points of views. An exploration of the individual, environmental, and behavioral
factors affecting the participation of females in the STEM fields is explained. The paper reviewed 165 studies
between 2013 and 2023 that discussed the determinants of girls' participation in STEM subjects. The researchers
used a PRISMA protocol-guided literature search with a thematic analysis of selected studies. The most
noteworthy findings explain that girls are underrepresented in STEM subjects because of personal factors such
as low interest, poor self-concept, and negative attitude toward the subjects; environmental factors in the form of
lack of cooperation, stereotypes, and poor role modeling; and behavioral factors indicated by low motivation,
self-efficacy, and career planning deficiencies. The paper outlines multiple strategies to deal with these factors
through hands-on exposure to STEM subjects, enhanced self-confidence and self-efficacy, positive role models,
and a facilitative learning environment for STEM education.

Then, in the research study of Allison Cheek and Allison Kay Cheek (2023), "The Relationship
Between Gender, Academic Performance, and Confidence within Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Classes," the study explains the link of levels of confidence, the level of academic
performance, and gender about sixth, seventh, and eighth-grade classes in terms of STEM. The primary focus of
this study is whether disparity exists between genders in these fields. The subjects of this research study
consisted of 122 preadolescent students who were enrolled in classes under the STEM category. The method
used to carry out the research study involved contrasting scores in the self-esteem survey of students with their
math and science grades. The data was analyzed using a combination of linear regression tests as well as a
comparison of two means. Some of the main findings in terms of conclusions will lead to the fact that no
statistically significant relationship exists between student confidence, academic performance, and gender
within the sample population under analysis. It would thus appear at least if only within the sample of STEM
students involved, to indicate that the gap for gender within STEM has closed.

Next, the research conducted by Thulani Andrew Chauke (2022) with the title “Gender Differences in
Determinants of Students’ Interest in STEM Education” students from Technical and Vocational Education and
Training (TVET) colleges in South Africa are used in this study to answer the question “What factors
determinants male and female interest towards STEM education.” This research aims to identify the variable
influence in STEM education. It tackles the gender gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) by analyzing qualitative data from focus-group interviews. Societal stereotyping and bias still factor in
interest in STEM education. Moreover, variables such as lucrative salary, graduate retention rate, math &
science aptitude, parent's educational level, and autonomy influence male and female students' interest in STEM
education in South Africa.

Subsequently, in the study "I come from a poor family”: deciphering how working-class young men
aspire to and experience their journeys in STEM higher education by Garth Stahl, Shaneeza Fugurally, Yating
Hu, Tin Nguyen, and Sarah McDonald (2024). The author examines the motivations and journeys that working-
class young men take in pursuing degrees in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Qualitatively
longitudinal, the focus of this study is examining the experiences of higher education of first-in-family males
across STEM, interviewing and ascertaining aspirations and difficulties encountered by these individuals in
pursuing their higher education through STEM. Three such themes that stand out as particularly well-
illuminated in these findings: are financial stability and fulfillment, internalized pressure, and the struggle with
social adjustment within the university setting. Thus, the research serves as very informative in enhancing
support for boys from non-traditional backgrounds as they move through the STEM pathway.

Then, the study under the title: A Systematic Review of Studies on Gender Diversity in STEM
Education by Huong Le Thi Thu, Chuyen Nguyen Thi Hong, Vinh Nguyen Huy & Binh Le Thi (2024) aims to
examine and link this research with the broader issue in STEM education: who does/does not enter, persist
through, or pursue a career in STEM fields? The research is a review of 42 STEM education gender diversity
studies in academic databases such as Scopus. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses: The literature search will be performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. These results imply that the greater delivery of top-performing scientists
and technologists is causing economic spillovers through STEM education. Nevertheless, a critical concern
exists for gender representation within the STEM workforce.

Next, in the study titled: "LGBTQ Inequality in Engineering Education" by Erin A. Cech and William
R. Rothwell (2018), a more detailed focus is placed on the particular problems these LGBTQ students suffer in
engineering programs. Such a study analyzes whether these LGBTQ students are further marginalized and
devalued than their non-LGBTQ peers, then finally on how they fare in regards to their mental and emotional
wellbeing. To conduct this study, the researchers surveyed 1,729 undergraduate students from eight different U.S.
engineering programs, identifying 141 as LGBTQ members. It further reported that the outcomes of health and
wellness are worse for LGBTQ students. These findings highlight the urgent need for institutional and cultural
change to foster a friendly and more inclusive environment for LGBTQ students in STEM.

Also, in the study by Karim Boustani and Kirk A. Taylor (2020) titled “Navigating LGBTQ+
discrimination in academia: where do we go from here?” Results show that individuals who are members of
LGBTQ also experience discrimination, leading to suppression of identity and expression which affects their
mental health and academic performance negatively. It also highlights the importance of initiatives and the need
for necessary actions to combat discrimination. The researchers aim to explore the experiences of LGBTQ
members in academia, focusing primarily on the discrimination they face and the impact on their mental health
and performance, it also discusses the existing initiatives and the need for further actions to create a more
inclusive environment. The researchers used a qualitative approach, drawing on personal narratives and existing
literature to highlight the challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in academia.

Moreover, the study titled: "Finding Community and Overcoming Barriers: Experiences of Queer and
Transgender Postsecondary Students in Mathematics and Other STEM Fields" by Elizabeth Kersey and
Matthew Voigt (2021). This study examines queer and transgender experiences in the STEM fields, focusing on
the struggles they face and how certain support mechanisms help them to flourish despite these hurdles. In doing
so, they hope to underscore the importance of more diverse and positive structures in STEM education. The
study is about Queer and transgender college students studying mathematics or related STEM. The study applies
a qualitative method of gathering data using interviews and focus group discussions to generate rich insights
regarding the participants' experiences. The results demonstrate that LGBTQ students in general may experience
substantial obstacles to STEM education, especially trans and queer minors. Instead, having a support system —
like the one at CAU that allows students to find community and advocates whom they can trust will be essential
for navigating through any hardship that should arise while completing their degree.

Furthermore, a study titled: “LGBT+ Academics’ and PhD Students’ Experience of Visibility in
STEM”: More than Raising a Rainbow Flag by Marco Reggiani, Jessica Dawn Gagnon, & Rebecca Jane Lunn
(2024). The study aims to explore how LGBT+ visibility is navigated by academics and PhD students in STEM,
focusing on the systemic challenges they face, including tokenism and lack of institutional support. The
researchers used a thematic analysis of interviews and focus groups, and there were 24 LGBTQ participants
including both academic and PhD students. The result of this study shows that LGBT+ visibility in STEM
remains risky, with participants feeling burdened by the expectation of being visible without sufficient
institutional inclusion efforts.

Then, In the study called “Examining the Ecological Systems of LGBTQ STEM Majors” by Jodi L.
Linley, Kristen A. Renn, and Michael R. Woodford (2018), the authors talk of the interrelationship that
'influence' identities in the context of academic experiences in STEM fields among gays and lesbians who
pursue a degree in a STEM major. The National Study of LGBTQ Student Success used qualitative data while
interviewing LGBTQ STEM students. In conducting a qualitative study, the methods used included open and
axial coding on interview transcripts so that key themes related to the experiences of LGBTQ students in STEM
fields could be found. There are several key findings of the study. They include (a) the influence of peers,
faculty, and staff on the presence of LGBTQ students within different STEM departments; (b) the presence of
social science and humanities academic departments as conducive environments for LGBTQ students; and (c)
the influence of students' LGBTQ identities on their higher education experiences as this affects interaction with
peers within the confines of other exosystem and macrosystem interactions.

Another study titled: "From Chilly Climate to Warm Reception: Experiences and Good Practices for
Supporting LGBTQ Students in STEM" by Carolyn S. Brinkworth (2016). The study addresses the unique
challenges faced by LGBTQ students in STEM fields and aims to identify good practices for creating supportive
and inclusive environments. The research involves LGBTQ students in STEM fields, including educators and
administrators who work with these students. The study uses qualitative methods, including interviews and
focus groups, to gather insights into the experiences of LGBTQ students and the practices that support them.
The findings highlight the importance of creating inclusive and supportive environments for LGBTQ students in
STEM. Good practices include providing mentorship, fostering a community, and implementing policies that
promote equity and inclusion.
 Lastly, the study under the title “The Intersectional Privilege of White Able-Bodied Heterosexual Men
in STEM" by Erin A. Cech (2022) takes a look at whether white able-bodied heterosexual men (WAHM) have
some kind of systematic perks in STEM when you put them next to other categories like gender, race, sexual
identity, and disability status. It uses some number crunching, looking at survey data to see how WAHM are
treated and rewarded compared to other groups. The results show that WAHM tends to have these systematic
advantages in STEM, getting better treatment, more respect, and bigger rewards than others. So, it points to the
fact that intersectional privilege matters in STEM fields.

5. Synthesis
In this case, the author analyzed the push and pull factors in the pursuit of STEM degrees among
working-class young men and women. This also brought into the limelight the discrimination that was
happening in STEM education about LGBTQ students, especially about suppressing their identity and
expression that would affect their performance and mental health in learning. The report highlighted how
important it is to have diversified and supporting organizations in STEM education, especially when it comes to
the issue of LGBTQ individuals. It showed that LGBTQ students also experience marginalization and
devaluation in their STEM careers. It further revealed that more diverse and functional frameworks for STEM
education are in high demand by students who benefit from systemic advantages like better treatment, respect,
and more awards. The research also highlighted the challenges that LGBT+ scholars and PhD candidates in
STEM face. These include dealing with visibility issues and the effects of interconnected oppressive institutions.
This survey also highlighted how classmates, teachers, and staff affect the number of LGBTQ students in
various STEM programs.

6. Conclusion
This meta-analysis aims to evaluate ways of increasing the overall inclusion and participation in STEM.
The results highlighted the factors influencing males' and females’ interest in STEM, gender inclusion, and
participation. Furthermore, several studies within this meta-analysis also explored the experiences of LGBTQ in
STEM. These studies mentioned the challenges that LGBTQ face, such as discrimination, career limitations, and
mental health struggles due to lack of visibility and support. Moreover, the review revealed that challenges
persist despite the efforts and progress in achieving inclusivity in STEM. The study also indicated that having a
female teacher can significantly boost female students’ confidence and improve their academic performance.
Improved gender equality can improve all students’ academic performance and increase participation in STEM
(Wang et al., 2023). By conducting this meta-analysis, we can highlight strategies that have already made
positive outcomes in some STEM disciplines, such as mentorship programs, supportive learning environments,
inclusive curriculums, and professional development opportunities (Tsui, 2007).

Achieving true gender diversity in STEM requires continued collaborative efforts to break systemic barriers and
create equal opportunities for all.

Bio notes
Sheena Mae S. Noble, Carl A. Fuerza, Exikhiel P. Cabigao, Ana Marie Sabao, Alexa C. Dela Cruz, Shian
Ramierre L. Sosing, Bern Rhebe M. Ortega, and Junjun Rebamontan are Grade 11 students in the STEM
program at Taal High School. This project was undertaken as part of their English for Academic and
Professional Purposes (EAPP) subject, demonstrating their collaborative efforts and dedication.

Reference
Billing, C., Bramley, G., Ioramashvili, C., Lynam, R., Cepeda Zorrilla, M., Collinson, S., ... & Yuan, P. Y. (2023).
The impact of university STEM assets: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Plos one, 18(6),
e0287005.

Makarova, E., Aeschlimann, B., & Herzog, W. (2019, July). The gender gap in STEM fields: The impact of the
gender stereotype of math and science on secondary students' career aspirations. In Frontiers in
Education (Vol. 4, p. 60). Frontiers Media SA.
Stewart, C. A. (2021). Underrepresentation of women STEM leaders: Twelve women on different journeys using
their voices to shape the world through science. European Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 16.

Mulvey, K. L., J Mathews, C., Knox, J., Joy, A., & Cerda-Smith, J. (2022). The role of inclusion, discrimination,
and belonging for adolescent science, technology, engineering and math engagement in and out of
school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(8), 1447-1464.

Kricorian, K., Seu, M., Lopez, D., Ureta, E., & Equils, O. (2020). Factors influencing participation of
underrepresented students in STEM fields: matched mentors and mindsets. International Journal of
STEM Education, 7, 1-9.
Schmader, T. (2023). Gender inclusion and fit in STEM. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 219-243.
Gichuru, J. (2024). Enhancing STEM Education Through Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Decolonization.
In Global Perspectives on STEM Education: Theory and Practice (pp. 29-50). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Seyranian, V., Madva, A., Duong, N., Abramzon, N., Tibbetts, Y., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). The
longitudinal effects of STEM identity and gender on flourishing and achievement in college
physics. International journal of STEM education, 5, 1-14.
Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., & Hu, X. (2024). Cross-Cultural Patterns of Gender Differences in STEM:
Gender Stratification, Gender Equality and Gender-Equality Paradoxes. Educational Psychology
Review, 36(2), 37.
Palid, O., Cashdollar, S., Deangelo, S., Chu, C., & Bates, M. (2023). Inclusion in practice: A systematic review
of diversity-focused STEM programming in the United States. International Journal of STEM
Education, 10(1), 2.
Miele, D. B., Browman, A. S., & Vasilyeva, M. (2020). Individual differences in students’ effort source beliefs
predict their judgments of ability. Motivation Science, 6(2), 110.
Bowman, N. A., Logel, C., LaCosse, J., Jarratt, L., Canning, E. A., Emerson, K. T., & Murphy, M. C. (2022).
Gender representation and academic achievement among STEM-interested students in college STEM
courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(10), 1876-1900.
Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Gender gaps in achievement and participation in
multiple introductory biology classrooms. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 478-492.
Sattari, N., & Sandefur, R. L. (2019). Gender in academic STEM: A focus on men faculty. Gender, Work &
Organization, 26(2), 158-179.
Msambwa, M. M., Daniel, K., Lianyu, C., & Antony, F. (2024). A Systematic Review Using Feminist
Perspectives on the Factors Affecting Girls’ Participation in STEM Subjects. Science & Education, 1-32.
Cheek, A., & Cheek, A. K. (2023). The Relationship Between Gender, Academic Performance, and Confidence
Within Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Classes.
Chauke, T. A. (2022). Gender differences in determinants of students’ interest in STEM education. Social
Sciences, 11(11), 534.
Stahl, G., Fugurally, S., Hu, Y., Nguyen, T., & McDonald, S. (2024). “I come from a poor family”: deciphering
how working-class young men aspire to and experience their journeys in STEM higher education. The
Australian Educational Researcher, 1-22.
Hong, C. N. T., Thu, H. L. T., Huy, V. N., & Le Thi, B. (2024). A Systematic Review of Research on Gender
Diversity in STEM Education. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 23(4).
Boustani, K., & Taylor, K. A. (2020). Navigating LGBTQ+ discrimination in academia: where do we go from
here? The biochemist, 42(3), 16-20.
Cech, E. A., & Rothwell, W. R. (2018). LGBTQ inequality in engineering education. Journal of Engineering
Education, 107(4), 583-610.
Kersey, E., & Voigt, M. (2021). Finding community and overcoming barriers: experiences of queer and
transgender postsecondary students in mathematics and other STEM fields. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 33(4), 733-756.
Reggiani, M., Gagnon, J. D., & Lunn, R. J. (2024). LGBT+ academics’ and PhD students’ experiences of
visibility in STEM: more than raising the rainbow flag. Higher Education, 87(1), 69-87.
Linley, J. L., Renn, K. A., & Woodford, M. R. (2018). Examining the ecological systems of LGBTQ STEM
majors. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 24(1).
Brinkworth, C. S. (2016). From chilly climate to warm reception: Experiences and good practices for supporting
LGBTQ students in STEM.
Cech, E. A. (2022). The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM. Science
Advances, 8(24), eabo1558.
Wang, N., Tan, A. L., Zhou, X., Liu, K., Zeng, F., & Xiang, J. (2023). Gender differences in high school
students’ interest in STEM careers: A multi-group comparison based on structural equation
model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 59.
Tsui, L. (2007). Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: A review of the research literature. The
Journal of Negro Education, 555-581.