ABSTRACT
The development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) requires more qualified professionals in these fields. However, gender segregation in higher education in this sector is creating a gender gap that means that for some disciplines female representation does not even reach 30% of the total. In order to propose measures to address the phenomenon, it is necessary to understand the possible causes of this issue. A systematic literature review and mapping were carried out for the study, following the PRISMA guidelines and flowchart. The research questions to be answered were (RQ1) What studies exist on the gender gap in relation to the choice of higher education in the STEM field; and (RQ2) How do gender roles and stereotypes influence decision-making related to higher education? The review of peer-reviewed scientific articles, conferences texts, books and book chapters on the European education area was applied. A total of 4571 initial results were obtained and, after the process marked by the PRISMA flowchart, the final results were reduced to 26. The results revealed that gender stereotypes are strong drivers of the gender gap in general, and the Leaky Pipeline and Stereotype Threat in particular. To narrow the gender gap, it is necessary to focus on influences from the family, the educational environment, and the peer group, as well as from the culture itself. Positive self-concept, self-efficacy, self-confidence, and self-perception need to be fostered, so that the individual chooses their studies according to their goals.
ABSTRACT
Differences in the representation of diversity in higher education, emphasising the gender gap in some areas, are issues addressed from different research domains. Socially, gender roles have been constructed and are also related to professions. In this context, the Social Cognitive Career Theory explores the possible causes of segregation. This segregation is evident in Europe and Spain, as indicated by the European Institute for Gender Equality. This paper describes the design and validation process of an instrument to find out what opinions university students have about higher education studies in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), according to gender. After drafting the questionnaire, it was piloted in a non-experimental quantitative design in Spain. Subsequently, a validity and reliability study was applied to validate the items and construct their dimensionality. The process was implemented using Reliability Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis. Also, the dimensionality consists of five scales: Gender Ideology, Perception and Self-perception, Expectations about Science, Attitudes and Interests. Based on the results, it is concluded that the opinion about STEM studies is conditioned by personal elements, such as motivations, educational background and family and social influences, such as people who judged their decision, were their references or studied STEM programs. Finally, it is essential to pay socio-educational attention to the modulating components of decisions about which higher education studies to pursue. Awareness of the factors involved in the decision helps the educational community to establish mechanisms to prevent horizontal gender segregation. The instrument designed, validated and presented in this study provides a glimpse of possible causes for the gender gap in STEM higher education.
ABSTRACT
In recent years, technology has been implemented in the field of interventions for older adults. GRADIOR 4.5 is a cognitive software within the wide variety of available multimedia programs that support healthcare professionals in cognitive assessment and neuropsychological rehabilitation. The study aimed to evaluate the new version of GRADIOR (v4.5) based on the experience of people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), people with dementia (PWD), and healthcare professionals. A qualitative study using the focus group methodology was carried out involving 13 people with MCI, 13 PWD, and 11 healthcare professionals. An analysis of the content and the level of feedback was performed. The study showed that GRADIOR 4.5 might be sufficiently adapted to PWD and people with MCI. Participants were motivated to use GRADIOR 4.5, showed high acceptability of the software, and a positive attitude towards technology. However, healthcare professionals suggested significant improvements to the software. GRADIOR 4.5 appeared to be a promising intervention that, because of its positive experience and acceptability, could be systematically implemented to complement cognitive rehabilitation interventions for older adults with MCI and dementia. Finally, it is advisable to consider the suggestions gathered in this study for future developments.
