Next Article in Journal
A Current Overview of the Use of Learning Analytics Dashboards
Previous Article in Journal
Learning Sciences from the Past: Recovery, Study, and Cataloging of a Historical Natural History School Museum
Previous Article in Special Issue
Measuring Implicit STEM and Math Attitudes in Adolescents Online with the Brief Implicit Association Test
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/educsci14010081
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Increasing Self-Concept and Decreasing Gender Stereotypes in STEM through Professional Development for Early Childhood Educators

by
Sarah Feierabend
1,*,
Sabine Hasenhütl
2,
Manuela Paechter
2,
Silke Luttenberger
3,
Marina W. T. Eglmaier
4 and
Lars Eichen
1
1
Institute of Education Research and Teacher Education, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria
2
Institute of Psychology, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria
3
Practical Education and Action Research, University College of Teacher Education Styria, 8010 Graz, Austria
4
Division of Physiology, Otto Loewi Research Center, Medical University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(1), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010081
Submission received: 24 October 2023 / Revised: 23 December 2023 / Accepted: 3 January 2024 / Published: 11 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sticking with STEM: Who Comes, Who Stays, Who Goes, and Why?)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Starting early in life, children, especially girls, experience obstacles when it comes to developing an interest in STEM. Although early childhood (EC) educators face an important task in promoting girls (and boys) in STEM, they often face challenges in doing so. Therefore, it is crucial for EC educators to cultivate positive attitudes, self-concepts, and STEM skills. To address these identified issues, a three-month professional development program was created for EC educators. This professional development program was evaluated using a pre–post design with a focus on the self-concept and gender stereotypes of EC educators. The program involved 30 female EC educators in evaluating these aspects. The statistical analyses show positive results in enhancing educators’ self-concepts and reducing gender stereotypes over the course of this professional development program. The results suggest the potential of the blended learning design in this professional development program and indicate that this program could serve as a promising model for future interventions.

1. Introduction

Proficiency and interest in STEM empower the succeeding generation to actively participate in shaping a sustainable, technology-oriented future [1]. Early childhood lays the foundation for the development of STEM proficiency and interest [2]. Positive learning experiences enhance children’s interest, boost their confidence in their STEM abilities [3,4], contribute to their later academic success [5,6], and may even impact career choices [7,8]. However, already in early childhood, disparities in STEM to the disadvantage of girls can be observed. They manifest in negative self-assessments and attitudes, such as a lower self-concept, lower interest, and gender stereotypes [9,10,11,12], as well as lower STEM achievements and stereotyped career wishes [13,14].
Children’s development in STEM is shaped by educators who wield significant influence, molding children’s thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes through their own actions, communication, and expectations [15,16,17,18]. However, EC educators, too, can be influenced by gender stereotypes and harbor negative self-assessments. In light of these challenges, a professional development program focusing on gender-sensitive STEM pedagogy was developed and evaluated to determine its potential to positively impact EC educators’ self-assessments and stereotypes.

1.1. Self-Assessments and Stereotypes as a Barrier to Gender-Sensitive STEM Education

From early childhood, individuals develop self-concepts, i.e., temporally relatively stable conceptions and evaluations of themselves, in different domains [19]. The self-concept in domains such as STEM (often referred to as academic STEM self-concept) develops through earliest experiences in the family, kindergarten, school, etc., and interpretations of one’s own environment in relation to feelings of self-confidence, competence, and capability [20,21]. Evaluations from significant others, reinforcements, and attributions of one’s own behavior have an influence on the formation of the self-concept [22]. With the start of vocational training, a professional self-concept is added. It refers to how individuals perceive themselves within their professional or work-related roles and encompasses whether an individual sees themselves as proactive and self-responsible in their work [23,24]. Such self-assessments within the self-concept influence EC educators’ instructional behavior and, consequently, the achievements of children [25].
Not only the self-concept but also stereotypes develop already in early childhood. Gender stereotypes can be defined as shared beliefs that link women and men with specific characteristics, abilities, and interests while mostly judging women as less competent and less committed [26]. For Austria (the country in which the study was conducted), this can be attributed to the fact that in Austria and generally in the German-speaking countries, traditional family structures and gender-specific role divisions are still strongly adhered to. This further contributes to the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and roles [27,28]. Gender stereotypes have extensive effects on individuals, influencing the development of academic self-concept in STEM subjects, as well as self-concept within one’s profession.
Given that early childhood education as a profession is predominantly female and closely associated with interest and expertise in the social domain [29], it is not surprising that EC educators are susceptible to self-critical evaluations and gender stereotypes, both regarding themselves and women/girls in general [30,31,32]. For example, a study in Sweden revealed that educators are influenced by preconceived notions about children’s STEM development and believe that gender differences are innate [33].
Research in the field of early childhood education indicates that self-concepts and stereotypes held by EC educators wield a significant influence on their interactions with children. For instance, educators’ self-concepts are closely tied to their actual professional knowledge and skills. A low self-concept has been associated with limited foundational knowledge and pedagogical skills for effectively introducing STEM topics to children [34]. Conversely, a positive assessment of STEM skills and genuine enjoyment of STEM correlate with an increased frequency of providing STEM activities [35]. Prior success and enjoyment in delivering STEM activities for children can further bolster an educator’s self-concept. In a study conducted by Erden and Sönmez [36], positive prior experiences were positively correlated with positive attitudes among EC educators towards science education. In contrast, uncertainties about one’s knowledge and skills, negative emotions, or even anxiety stemming from EC educators’ past school experiences with science subjects can have a detrimental impact on their later professional work [37].
Educators may manifest stereotypes about the interests of girls and boys in STEM in various ways. This can involve restricting or directing children’s play choices based on activities traditionally deemed suitable for boys or girls, focusing more on developing boys’ abilities in what is perceived as masculine domains, or generally holding different expectations for girls and boys [33,38,39,40]. As Wang [41] points out, merely verbally stating an intention to have the same expectations for boys and girls in STEM does not necessarily equate to educators acting without bias in their professional practice. Educators may unintentionally convey to girls that STEM is a boy-dominated field, imposing negative impacts on girls’ STEM development. These findings illuminate the conflicting beliefs and practices of EC educators and underscore the critical role that their stereotypes and self-concepts play when working with children, potentially transferring their expectations, attitudes, or uncertainties. They also emphasize the necessity of continuously addressing and expanding EC educators’ beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge in vocational training and professional development [32].

1.2. Professional Development Concept for EC Educators

The previous explanations have illustrated the challenges that EC educators face in STEM and have highlighted the need for appropriate professional development. This holds also (or even especially) true for EC educators in German-speaking countries who often lack expertise in STEM pedagogy. This knowledge gap is a direct result of inadequate initial training and the absence of continuous professional development [42,43,44]. To address this issue, a comprehensive professional development concept tailored to the needs and the education system in Austria was developed. Through professional development, newly acquired skills and knowledge can be immediately applied in practice. It is believed that these acquired competencies may have a positive impact on self-concept [45]. Its primary objective is to enhance the STEM pedagogical skills of EC educators, with a specific emphasis on gender-sensitive education as well as on educators’ attitudes and stereotypes.
Theoretical model for a professional development program. The concept aligns with the SciMath-DLL Professional Development Three-Component Model by Brenneman and colleagues [46]. This theoretical model encompasses the acquisition of knowledge in STEM fields as well as pedagogical knowledge and emphasizes the significance of opportunities to apply the newfound knowledge in practical pedagogical settings. It also aims to explore EC educators’ beliefs and attitudes towards STEM while supporting opportunities for discussion, reflection, and the creation of a community of learners. By incorporating these components, the intention is to bolster EC educators’ pedagogical abilities, encourage critical reflection on their professional activities, enhance motivation, and cultivate positive attitudes toward STEM subjects. The Three-Component Model considers cognitive learning objectives such as understanding, applying knowledge and procedures, evaluating or creating (e.g., developing learning units). In addition, it addresses affective learning objectives, such as values, esteem, and attitudes [46,47,48,49].
Advancement of a professional development program. For the newly involved professional development program, a blended learning design was chosen, interweaving online and face-to-face learning in different learning phases (see Table 1) and presenting a flexible and learner-friendly alternative to traditional face-to-face instruction [50]. Especially in early childhood education, online professional development, such as blended learning, has gained importance in improving educators’ knowledge and skills, thus advancing the professionalization of the field [51].
After an (online) introduction to the course (phase 1), the focus is on fundamentals and background knowledge for teaching and learning in STEM (phase 2). In several learning units, overarching themes such as “gender-sensitive teaching”, “motivation and interest”, or “impact of stereotypes” are addressed. Each learning unit commences with a more theoretically oriented introduction and progresses forward to practical implications and pedagogical practice. Phase 2 is implemented as asynchronous online learning, providing participants with the flexibility to engage with the learning materials independently, at their convenience. In accordance with the Three-Component Model [46] this self-regulated approach is complemented with tasks, opportunities for online discussions, and reflective dialogues with both fellow participants and the course instructors.
The main segment of the professional development program on didactic skills and expertise in STEM is conducted as a face-to-face workshop (phase 3). The focus is on enabling participants to translate knowledge of gender-sensitive STEM didactics into pedagogical activities. The fundamentals for the topic are illustrated with didactic good practice examples from different STEM areas, with the age range of four- to five-year-old children in focus. For science, didactic examples on the topic “human body” had been developed, the “principle of chain reactions” for technology, “programming unplugged” ideas for engineering and “measures and sizes” using the example of the human body for mathematics. The intent behind designing the didactic examples was to make sure participants had ample opportunity to put their own ideas into practice. For children, the didactic examples emphasize hands-on experiences, achieving immediate learning success, and fostering a positive self-concept and interest. The examples are enriched by female role models, which offer girls in particular opportunities for identification. In the face-to-face workshop, the EC educators are introduced to these didactic examples and the materials, they try them out for themselves, and discuss their applicability to their everyday professional life. Care was taken to ensure that the examples provided the EC educators with ample room to implement their own creative ideas. All documents and materials are also available online, enabling participants to delve deeper into the knowledge acquired during the workshop.
Following the face-to-face workshop, the participants put their acquired skills into practice at the workplace (phase 4). For this purpose, they can borrow all the learning and teaching materials from the course provider. As a result, the workshop not only provides EC educators with practical experience in teaching the content during the workshops but also allows them to continue applying their skills in their professional settings afterward. The professional development program concludes with an online meeting and an exchange of experiences (phase 5).
All learning units are accompanied by discussions and reflections on what has been learned and its significance for one’s own profession and attitudes. Feedback is provided by the course instructors as well as by fellow course participants. Not only cognitive learning objectives but also objectives that focus on the development of positive attitudes and mindsets are significant for the professional development program, not least because the educators are important role models, especially female educators for girls [52].

2. Research Questions

The present study aims to evaluate this professional development program regarding its effects on the participants’ self-concept and gender stereotypes. The following research questions and hypotheses are being investigated:
1.
How do participants evaluate the professional development program?
As the evaluation is an exploratory question, no hypothesis was formed in this regard.
2.
Is participation in the professional development program related to changes in educators’ self-concept?
H1. 
In comparison to a control group that does not participate in the professional development program, the participants’ self-concept will change over the course of the training.
3.
Is participation in the professional development program related to changes in educators’ gender stereotypes concerning children?
H2. 
In comparison to a control group that does not take part in the professional development program, the participants’ gender stereotypes concerning children will change over the course of the training.

3. Method

3.1. Samples and Study Design

Samples. The professional development program described in 1.2. was evaluated by using a study design with a training group and a control group.
The training group included EC educators who had voluntarily registered for a professional development program on promoting girls in STEM. Participation was acknowledged as part of the annual continuing education hours that EC educators are required to complete on a regular basis. Altogether, 31 EC educators, all employed in an early childhood education facility, participated in the professional development program (30 women, one man; data analyses were carried out only for the female participants). The age range varied from 20 to 54 years (M = 33.97, SD = 10.105). The participants’ work experience varied from one to 35 years (M = 11.38, SD = 9.777); 58.1% had never taken any STEM professional development program. Regarding occupational positions, the training group had 9 (30%) participants in management roles with childcare responsibilities, 14 (46.7%) worked as EC educators as group leaders, 7 (23.3%) had other functions.
The control group included 25 female EC educators, all employed in an early childhood education facility. They did not participate in the professional development program and were recruited from different early childhood education facilities. The age range for the participants in the control group varied between 20 and 45 years (M = 30.72, SD = 6.262). Work experience varied from one to 24 years (M = 9.29, SD = 6.682); 48% had never taken any STEM training. Regarding occupational positions, the control group had one (4%) participant in management roles with childcare responsibilities, 13 (52%) worked as EC educators as group leaders, 11 (44%) had other functions.
Study design. The professional development program was implemented as a blended-learning design with online and in-person learning phases. It was conducted at the authors’ institution and lasted 14 weeks with a workload of approximately 40 h. The program comprised five different learning phases with respective modules (see Table 1):
  • Phase 1—kick-off meeting. A kick-off meeting marked the start of the professional development program. It was conducted online synchronously, aiming to familiarize participants with each other, giving opportunities for reflection on individual professional experiences and discussing organizational matters;
  • Phase 2—self-regulated learning with online modules. After the kick-off meeting, the participants learned with online modules that covered topics such as gender-sensitive didactics, motivation in STEM subjects, stereotypes, and reflections on pedagogical practices and roles. Participants could decide on their own learning time and place;
  • Phase 3—in-person workshop. In a two-day long in-person workshop at the institution of the course providers, participants got acquainted with didactic examples pertaining to four different STEM fields;
  • Phase 4—implementation of the didactic examples in one’s own professional practice. The participants tried out didactic examples at their workplaces;
  • Phase 5—closing event. The EC educators gathered online to exchange experiences, reflect on their work, and engage in synchronous discussions with fellow participants about the training.
Table 1 gives an overview of the time schedule and the measures that are relevant for the present study.
The training group members participated at all points in time. They completed different survey instruments at the five time points; only the data collections at time points 1 and 5 are relevant to this study. Members of the control group did not take part in the professional development program and, therefore, did not receive any of its content. They completed the same surveys as the training group at the first point in time (approximately at t1, the start of the professional development program for the training group) and (t5).

3.2. Variables

Gender, age, professional profile, and work experience were recorded at the kick-off event (t1) for the training group and at the first survey for the control group (t1). The training and the control group completed assessments on different facets of the self-concept and on gender stereotypes at the first point in time (t1).
Additionally, the training group evaluated the training at the closing event (t5) by three items. Overall satisfaction, assessment of learning achievements, and usefulness of the training for professional practice were measured by three items (“overall, I am with the training … 1 = not satisfied to 6 = very satisfied”; “altogether I have learned … 1 = little to 6 = a lot”; “the training is … 1 = not useful to 6 = very useful for my professional practice”).
Three facets of self-concept were measured.
Social academic self-concept in STEM was measured by the respective scale of the SASK (Skalen zum akademischen Selbstkonzept (Academic Self Concept Scales) [20]. It comprises four items by which participants rate their abilities in comparison to others on a 7-point-Likert scale (see example item: “I believe I am… 1 = less talented to 7 = more talented… in STEM than other people). Reliability calculated by Cronbach’s α calculated for the whole sample at the two points in time was good, with α = 0.82 at t1 and α = 0.92 at t5.
Absolute self-concept was also measured by the SASK. It comprises four items by which participants rate their overall abilities without a reference to others (example item: I assess my talent in STEM as being … 1 = low to 7 = high). Reliability was very good, with α = 0.91 at t1 and α = 0.92 at t5.
Professional self-concept was measured by eight items, six from the Monitoring Report [53] of the “Haus der kleinen Forscher” initiative (House of Little Researchers) and two specifically developed for the present study (example items: “I feel confident in exploring everyday natural phenomena with children”; “I can identify children’s interest in STEM topics). Participants rate their self-concept on a 4-point Likert scale, with values ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Higher values indicate a more positive self-concept. Reliability was good, with α = 0.80 at t1 and α = 0.86 at t5.
Two facets of gender stereotypes were measured.
Stereotypes about girls’ and boys’ interest in STEM were measured by seven items using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree [21] (example item: “girls are not as interested as boys in STEM subjects”). Higher values indicate more pronounced stereotypes. Reliability was good to satisfactory, with α = 0.80 at t1 and α = 0.74 at t5.
Stereotypes about girls’ and boys’ abilities in STEM were measured by seven items; four items from the stereotype scale of Ertl et al. [21] (example item: “girls perform not as well as boys at STEM subjects”), one item from the scale of Mösko [54] (example item: “boys are more talented in STEM fields than girls”) another one from the scale by Grosch [55] (example item: “among the highly skilled in STEM fields, there are fewer girls than boys”), and one more item from the KomMa questionnaire (“girls need more support in STEM fields”) [56]. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree [21]. Higher values indicate more pronounced stereotypes. Reliability was good, with α = 0.87 at t1 and α = 0.85 at t5.
All analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics 29. Hypotheses (as described in Section 2) were tested by MANOVA and t-tests. For MANOVA results, effect sizes are described with η2 < 0.06 indicating a small effect, η2 ≥ 0.06 a medium and η2 > 0.14 a large effect. The study was performed in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code and the Declaration of Helsinki.

4. Results

4.1. Evaluation of the Professional Training Program

The first research question referred to the evaluation of the professional development program. Overall, the training was evaluated very positively, with mean values above 5.0 on the 6-point Likert scale (see Table 2). On all items, at least 50% of the participants evaluated the training with the highest value.

4.2. MANOVA Results for the Social, Absolute, and Professional Self-Concept

Self-concept was measured at two points in time. Table 3 describes the descriptive statistics for the variables.
Initial differences between the control group and the training group at test time 1 were evaluated using t-tests. These tests were applied to the social self-concept t(43,087) = 3.502, p < 0.001 *, the absolute self-concept t(42,334) = 2.410, p = 0.020 and the professional self-concept t(46,525) = 0.904, p = 0.371. Considering Bonferroni Alpha correction for three variables, p-values below p = 0.016 can be considered significant. Therefore, only the t-test for the social self-concept indicates a significant difference.
The second research question addresses whether a change in the direction of a more positive self-concept can be observed due to the training, i.e., whether an interaction between group × time can be observed. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with the factors group and time was carried out with the factors group and time. Overall, MANOVA yielded significant results for the factors group (Pillai’s F(3,51) = 4.232, p = 0.010, η2 = 0.199), time (Pillai’s F(3,51) = 4.290, p = 0.009, η2 = 0.202), and for the interaction group × time (Pillai’s F(3,51) = 3.772, p = 0.016, η2 = 0.182).
Univariate analyses for the single variables show a significant interaction group × time for the professional self-concept (see Table 4). While the values for the control group remained nearly the same, they increased for the training group.
Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 depict the results for the interaction. The training group starts on all three variables with a higher self-concept. A significant interaction in the sense that the training group improves while values stay the same for the control group can only be observed for the professional self-concept.

4.3. MANOVA Results for Stereotypes

Two stereotype variables were measured at two points in time in the training and the control group. Table 5 describes the descriptive statistics for the variables.
Initial differences between the control group and the training group at test time 1 were evaluated using t-tests. These tests were applied to the stereotypes on interests t(50,689) = 3.077, p < 0.002 * and the stereotypes on abilities t(48,3095) = 1.228, p = 0.225. Considering Bonferroni Alpha correction for two variables, p-values below p = 0.025 can be considered significant. Therefore, only the t-test for the stereotypes on interests indicates a significant difference.
The third research question addresses whether a change towards lower stereotype levels can be observed due to the professional development program, i.e., whether an interaction between group × time can be observed. MANOVA with the factors group and time yielded significant results for the factors time (Pillai’s F(2,52) = 5.650, p = 0.006, η2 = 0.179), group (Pillai’s F(2,52) = 3.139, p = 0.052, η2 = 0.108), and group × time (Pillai’s F(2,52) = 5.109, p = 0.009, η2 = 0.164). The univariate results for the two stereotype variables for differences between groups, time and for the interaction group × time are displayed in Table 6.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 depict the changes for the gender stereotype variables. For the stereotypes on interests, the training group starts with more pronounced stereotypes than the control group. A significant interaction in the sense that the training group’s stereotypes decrease while values stay the same for the control group can be observed for both variables.

5. Discussion

Research on STEM education underscores the importance of educators’ stereotypes and self-assessments in fostering gender-sensitive teaching in STEM. The lack of stereotypes or at least low stereotype levels and positive self-concepts are vital to ensure that both girls and boys have equal opportunities to nurture their interests, develop a positive attitude toward STEM subjects and fulfill their potential in the field [57,58]. In light of this perspective, the professional development concept also aimed to improve educators’ STEM self-concepts and decreasing their gender stereotypes.

5.1. Training Participants’ Overall Evaluation of the Professional Development Program

An important prerequisite for attitude change is that training is seen as important and useful [59]. Indeed, the participants in the training group evaluated the training very positively: 50% of them rated their overall course satisfaction at the highest level (a score of 6 on the scale), 56.7% reported the highest level of satisfaction with their learning outcomes, and 66.7% found the training highly beneficial for their professional practice. It should be considered that participants voluntarily chose to enroll in the training and registered for it, potentially introducing a bias in the assessments. Nonetheless, it is crucial to highlight that, despite this potential bias, the participants expressed high levels of satisfaction, which is pertinent to interpreting the findings, particularly regarding changes in self-concept and gender stereotypes.

5.2. Changes in Self-Concept

Three facets of the self-concept were assessed: social and absolute self-concept in STEM overall, plus professional self-concept in STEM.
The results indicate that the training had no noticeable impact on the participants’ absolute self-concept. Although the social self-concept decreased, this change was not attributed to the group that received the training. It appears that the participants did not translate the training experiences into their self-assessments, even though the didactic examples specifically addressed STEM content. In contrast, a training effect on the participants’ professional self-concept could be observed. This outcome can be attributed to the content of the training, which encompassed various elements such as gender-sensitive teaching in STEM, strategies to enhance children’s motivation in STEM, the role of stereotypes in education, and providing didactic good practice examples of how to foster both girls’ (and boys’) engagement in STEM in early childhood education. Although the different self-concepts influence each other, due to the focus of the training program, the professional self-concept might have been more strongly influenced. This outcome is also important as the self-concept inherently includes a motivational dimension, as underscored by Marsh et al. [60] in their Reciprocal Effects Model. A positive self-concept not only relates to perceived competence and performance but also encompasses motivational factors and effort. Therefore, in a professional development setting such as the one investigated, it is important not only to impart professional skills and knowledge but also to address and nurture the participants’ self-concept.
In addition, educators have an important role model function for the children entrusted to their care. They play a crucial role as influential socializers, wielding substantial influence over gender disparities in academic motivation, educational choices, and overall achievement [61,62]. Therefore, a positive self-concept in STEM is important not only for educators’ pedagogical practice, but also for how the children perceive their educators and develop STEM attitudes and assessments in interaction with these role models [33]. Female educators especially serve as role models for girls; younger girls, in particular, orient themselves strongly to their educators [52]. It is, therefore, all the more important that the educators themselves dispose of an interest, positive self-assessments, and high self-efficacy beliefs in STEM. In this context, alterations in educators’ professional self-concept can be regarded as an important outcome of the training.
Based on the results, the second hypothesis can only be partially confirmed. Examining three aspects of the self-concept—the social, absolute, and professional self-concept—significant changes were only observed in the professional self-concept.

5.3. Changes in Stereotypes

Research on STEM shows that (similar to other educators) also EC educators possess stereotypes about girls in STEM (e.g., [41,63]). In the present study, two categories of stereotypes had been measured: stereotypes regarding girls’ and boys’ interests (assuming lower interest of girls in STEM) and abilities in STEM (assuming inferiority of girls).
When examining the mean values of the study groups on both scales, it is first noticeable that agreement with the items is relatively low, with mean values falling below the scale mean of three and indicating a lower level of stereotypes. Nonetheless, interesting and important distinctions emerge between the means on the two stereotype scales. Statements regarding girls’ alleged inferiority in STEM fields are strongly repudiated compared to statements concerning their purported lower interest. These findings have been corroborated in other studies with varying populations (e.g., in Ertl et al. [21] in a sample of female college students). From an educator’s perspective, this composition of stereotypes would imply tailoring strategies for girls’ interests above all else when teaching STEM and focusing less on alleged ability differences.
The professional development program explicitly included content concerning gender stereotypes in STEM, encompassing their origins and the potential consequences they may have on children’s academic journeys, accompanied by discussions and reflections of the educators on their pedagogical role and personal attitudes. Moreover, the didactic examples were tailored to girls, including role models from diverse STEM fields. On the whole, the training appeared to effectively achieve its learning objectives aimed at mitigating stereotypes. The study results revealed training effects for both categories of stereotypes. In the case of interest-related stereotypes, it is noteworthy that the training group initially exhibited higher levels of stereotypes than the control group but managed to reduce these stereotypes through the professional training program while values in the control group stayed the same. As for stereotypes regarding abilities, both groups started with similar baseline values, but only the training group exhibited a reduction in their stereotypes. In light of research that even very young children can harbor gender stereotypes pertaining to play activities, interests, and occupations deemed suitable for boys/men or girls/women [13,62,63,64], it becomes important that EC educators themselves do not carry such biases. All the more important findings are suitable training concepts.

5.4. Limitations

This study is not without limitations. Limitations concern the sample size, with 30 participants in the training group. It is advisable to expand the sample size in future investigations to enhance the statistical power. Additionally, conducting more comprehensive analyses, such as exploring correlations and regression coefficients between educators’ attitudes and assessments, could yield valuable insights (but were not possible due to limited sample size). Further limitations pertain to the participants’ evaluations, particularly given that the training program introduced a novel and innovative concept. It is possible that participants’ assessments were influenced by a novelty effect. Furthermore, the study may be susceptible to limitations related to social desirability effects, although these limitations should not significantly impact the results pertaining to the training’s effectiveness. The critical factors here are the differences observed in judgments between the training and control groups and any changes over time. The self-selection of participants can lead to a bias in results, as individuals are not randomly chosen but rather opt into the study voluntarily. This might result in differences in characteristics, behaviors, or attitudes between participants and nonparticipants [65].

6. Summary and Conclusions

Despite the generally understood importance of STEM skills and attitudes, studies point to obstacles hindering the development of STEM competencies and interests of children that begin in their early educational development. These obstacles affect both boys and girls, with girls being particularly impacted. While EC educators face an important, difficult task in supporting children in STEM, they are also affected by barriers to STEM. It is, therefore, all the more important that EC educators are able to develop positive attitudes and self-assessments as well as high skills in STEM didactics. Against this background, training was developed, and its impact on EC educators’ self-concepts and stereotypes was evaluated. Overall, the results speak for the training as participants could increase their professional self-concept and decrease gender stereotypes.
The need for such a professional development program arises from a neglect of gender-sensitive pedagogical concepts for STEM in the Austrian vocational education curriculum for EC educators within the STEM domain. They do not receive sufficient pedagogical training during their education to effectively integrate STEM content into their teaching practices. Improvements are necessary in the vocational education of educators and for teachers responsible for the training of EC educators, including an assessment of their knowledge and pedagogical skills in STEM [66]. Altogether, there is a need to integrate this subject matter early in vocational education as well as to provide ongoing professional development opportunities for educators already established in their careers. Ideally, such training would be integrated into the curriculum and be continuous rather than an isolated, one-shot training to ensure a successful practical transfer in early childhood education. (see recommendations by Ari et al., [63]; Wei et al., [67]). The professional development program, characterized by features such as practical application of acquired knowledge in pedagogical contexts, facilitation of discussion, reflection, and the creation of a supportive learning community, can serve as a template for further refinement.
Conclusions also concern the implementation of the professional development program as blended learning with a mix of asynchronous and synchronous online phases and face-to-face workshops. This blended approach extends the reach of participation and temporal flexibility, accommodating educators in active employment residing at a distance. However, phases of instruction focusing on the manipulation of pedagogical materials, the application of didactic strategies, and immediate discussion and reflection necessitated face-to-face workshops. The effectiveness of this blended learning design in instigating positive changes in participants’ attitudes and self-assessments suggests its potential as a model for future training.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.F., M.P. and L.E.; methodology, S.F., S.H. and M.P.; formal analysis, S.F., S.H., M.P. and M.W.T.E.; investigation, S.F. and S.H.; resources, M.P., S.L. and L.E.; data curation, M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, S.F. and M.P.; writing—review and editing, S.F., S.H., M.P., S.L., M.W.T.E. and L.E.; supervision, M.P., S.L. and L.E.; project administration, S.F., S.H., M.P. and L.E.; funding acquisition, M.P., S.L. and L.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The project was funded by the Austrian Chancellery; Section III—Women’s Affairs and Equality.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was performed in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Federal Chancellery for their support. The authors also acknowledge the Open Access Funding by the University of Graz.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. OECD. PISA 2024 Strategic Vision and Direction for Science. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2024-Science-Strategic-Vision-Proposal.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
  2. Campbell, C.; Speldewinde, C.; Howitt, C.J.; MacDonald, A. STEM practice in the early years. Creat. Educ. 2018, 9, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Patrick, H.; Mantzicopoulos, P.; Samarapungavan, A.; French, B.F. Patterns of young children’s motivation for science and teacher-child relationship. J. Exp. Educ. 2008, 76, 121–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Eshach, H.; Fried, M.N. Should science be taught in early childhood? J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2005, 14, 315–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Morgan, P.L.; Farkas, G.; Hillemeier, M.M.; Maczuga, S. Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educ. Res. 2016, 45, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Watts, T.W.; Duncan, G.J.; Siegler, R.S.; Davis-Kean, P.E. What’s past is prologue: Relations between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educ. Res. 2014, 43, 352–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Saçkes, M.; Trundle, K.C.; Bell, R.L.; O’Connell, A.A. The influence of early science experience in kindergarten on children’s immediate and later science achievement: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 217–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Osborne, J. Attitude towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25, 1049–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dresel, M.; Schober, B.; Ziegler, A. Golem und “Pygmalion: Scheitert die Chancengleichheit von Mädchen im mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlich-technischen Bereich am geschlechtsstereotypen Denken der Eltern? In Erwartungen in Himmelblau und Rosarot: Effekte, Determinanten und Konsequenzen von Geschlechterdifferenzen in der Schule; Ludwig, H.P., Ludwig, H., Eds.; Juventa: München, Germany, 2007; pp. 61–81. [Google Scholar]
  10. Master, A.; Meltzoff, A.N.; Cheryan, S. Gender stereotypes about interests start early and cause gender disparities in computer science and engineering. Psychol. Cogn. Sci. 2021, 118, e2100030118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mustafa, N.A.; Shah, N.M.; Hashim, N.W.; Desa, M.M. An overview of stem education and industry 4.0 for early childhood education in Malaysia. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  12. Watt, H.M.; Eccles, J.S. Gender and Occupational Outcomes: Longitudinal Assessments of Individual, Social, and Cultural Influences; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; pp. 22–384. [Google Scholar]
  13. Häfele, E. Was Ich Einmal Werden Möchte Was Ich Einmal Werden Möchte… Zukunftsvorstellungen bei Kindern [What I Want to Be When I Grow Up… Children’s Ideas about the Future]. Available online: https://presse.vorarlberg.at/land/servlet/AttachmentServlet?action=show&id=24763 (accessed on 25 October 2023).
  14. Muntoni, F.; Retelsdorf, J. At their children’s expense: How parents’ gender stereotypes affect their children’s reading outcomes. Learn. Instr. 2019, 60, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Acker, S. Gendered Education: Sociological Reflections on Women, Teaching and Feminism; McGraw-Hill, Open University Press: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  16. Barrie, T. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School; Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1993; ISBN 0813519233. [Google Scholar]
  17. Clark, S.; Paechter, C. ‘Why can’t girls play football?’ Gender dynamics and the playground. Sport Educ. Soc. 2007, 12, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tiedemann, J. Teachers’ Gender Stereotypes as Determinants of Teacher Perceptions in Elementary School Mathematics. Educ. Stud. Math. 2002, 50, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Marsh, H.W.; Martin, A.J. Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 81, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dickhäuser, O.; Schöne, C.; Spinath, B.; Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. Die Skalen zum akademischen Selbstkonzept: Konstruktion und Überprüfung eines neuen Instrumentes. Z. Differ. Diagn. Psychol. 2002, 23, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ertl, B.; Luttenberger, S.; Paechter, M. The impact of gender stereotypes on the self-concept of female students in STEM subjects with an under-representation of females. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Marsh, H.W.; Scalas, L.F. Self-concept in learning: Reciprocal effects model between academic self-concept and academic achievement. In Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning; Järvela, S., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abele, A.E. Prädiktoren des Berufserfolgs von Lehrkräften. Befunde der Langzeitstudie MATHE. Z. Pädagogik 2011, 57, 674–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Koch, S. Berufliches Selbstkonzept und eigenverantwortliche Leistung. Gruppendynamik 2005, 36, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tschannen-Moran, M.; Hoy, A.W. Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2001, 17, 783–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Master, A.; Tang, D.; Forsythe, D.; Alexander, T.M.; Cheryan, S.; Meltzoff, A.N. Gender equity and motivational readiness for computational thinking in early childhood. Early Child. Res. Q. 2023, 64, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bacher, J.; Beham-Rabanser, M.; Forstner, M. Can work value orientations explain the gender wage gap in Austria? Int. J. Sociol. 2022, 52, 208–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Leitner, A. Gender Als Mainstream: Doing Gender in Theorie und Politischer Praxis. (Reihe Soziologie/Institut für Höhere Studien, Abt. Soziologie, 70). Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS). Available online: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-196889 (accessed on 1 October 2023).
  29. Holland, J.L. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments, 3rd ed.; Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, Ukraine, 1997; ISBN 0-911907-27-0. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cohrssen, C.; Page, J. Articulating a rights-based argument for mathematics teaching and learning in early childhood education. Australas. J. Early Child. 2016, 41, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hedlin, M.; Gunnarsson, G. Preschool student teachers, technology, and gender: Positive expectations despite mixed experiences from their own school days. Early Child Dev. Care 2014, 184, 1948–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McClure, E.R.; Guernsey, L.; Clements, D.H.; Bales, S.N.; Nichols, J.; Kendall-Taylor, N.; Levine, M.H. STEM Starts Early: Grounding Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education in Early Childhood. Available online: https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/jgcc_stemstartsearly_final.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2023).
  33. Gullberg, A.; Andersson, K.; Danielsson, A. Pre-Service Teachers’ Views of the Child—Reproducing or Challenging Gender Stereotypes in Science in Preschool. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 691–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Spektor-Levy, O.; Baruch, Y.K.; Mevarech, Z. Science and Scientific Curiosity in Pre-school—The teacher’s point of view. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2013, 35, 2226–2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gerde, H.K.; Pierce, S.J.; Lee, K.; Van Egeren, L.A. Early childhood educators’ self-efficacy in science, math, and literacy instruction and science practice in the classroom. Early Educ. Dev. 2018, 29, 70–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Erden, F.; Sönmez, S. The effect of science teaching on Turkish preschool teachers’ attitudes towards science teaching. Early Child Dev. Care 2011, 181, 285–300. [Google Scholar]
  37. Edwards, K.; Loveridge, J. The inside story: Looking into early childhood teachers’ support of children’s scientific learning. Australas. J. Early Child. 2011, 36, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Çetin, M.; Demircan H, Ö.; Şenyurt, E.; Aktürk, A.A. An Analysis of young children’s preferences on STEM Activities in terms of gender. J. Educ. Future 2020, 18, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fleer, M. When preschool girls engineer: Future imaginings of being and becoming an engineer. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 2019, 30, 100372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stephenson, T.; Fleer, M.; Fragkiadaki, G. Increasing girls’ STEM engagement in early childhood: Conditions created by the conceptual playworld model. Res. Sci. Educ. 2021, 52, 1243–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, S. Exploring Early Childhood Educators’ Perceptions and Practices Towards Gender Differences in STEM Play: A Multiple-Case Study in China. Early Child. Educ. J. 2023, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Plöger-Werner, M. Epistemologische Überzeugungen von Erzieherinnen und Erziehern: Die Bedeutung für das Pädagogische Handeln in Kindertageseinrichtungen; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rank, A. Subjektive Theorien von Erzieherinnen zu vorschulischem Lernen und Schriftspracherwerb. In Chancengleichheit in der Grundschule: Ursachen und Wege aus der Krise; Ramseger, J., Wagener, M., Eds.; Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Steffensky, M.; Anders, Y.; Barenthien, J.; Hardy, I.; Hartinger, A.; Kästner, R.; Leuchter, M.; Oppermann, E.; Pauen, S.; Rank, A.; et al. Wirkungen Naturwissenschaftlicher Bildungsangebote auf Pädagogische Fachkräfte und Kinder. Available online: https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2019/17871/pdf/Anders_et_al2019_Wirkungen_naturwissenschaftlicher_Bildungsangebote.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2023).
  45. Roche, L.A.; Marsh, H.W. Multiple dimensions of university teacher self-concept. Instr. Sci. 2000, 28, 439–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Brenneman, K.; Lange, A.; Nayfeld, I. Integrating STEM into preschool education; designing a professional development model in diverse settings. Early Child. Educ. J. 2019, 47, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Adams, N.E. Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2015, 103, 152–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Anderson, L.W.; Krathwohl, D.R.; Airsasian, P.W.; Cruikshank, K.A.; Mayer, R.E.; Pintrich, P.R.; Raths, J.; Wittrock, M.C. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Available online: https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2018/texts/Anderson-Krathwohl%20-%20A%20taxonomy%20for%20learning%20teaching%20and%20assessing.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2023).
  49. Koballa, T. Framework for the Affective Domain in Science Education. Available online: https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/framework.html (accessed on 1 October 2023).
  50. Rzejak, D.; Lipowsky, F.; Bleck, V. Synopse bedeutsamer Merkmale von Lehrkräftfortbildungen. Wirkungsebenen und konzeptionelle Aspekte. J. LehrerInnenbildung 2020, 20, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pölzl-Stefanec, E. Challenges and barriers to Austrian early childhood educators’ participation in online professional development programmes. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 2192–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Skipper, Y.; Leman, P.J. The role of feedback in young people’s academic choices. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2017, 39, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stiftung Haus der Kleinen Forscher. Monitoring Bericht 2016/2017. Available online: https://www.stiftung-kinder-forschen.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/4_Ueber_Uns/Evaluation/Monitoring-Bericht_2016_2017.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2023).
  54. Mösko, M. Elterliche Geschlechtsstereotype und Deren Einfluss auf das Mathematische Selbstkonzept von Grundschulkindern. Available online: https://www.fachportal-paedagogik.de/literatur/vollanzeige.html?FId=3302644 (accessed on 29 August 2023).
  55. Grosch, K.; Häckl, S.; Kocher, M.G.; Bauer, C. MINT-Interesse Steigern bei Kindern. Ein Feldexperiment an Volksschulen in Österreich. Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS) Institut for Advanced Studies. 2020. Available online: https://irihs.ihs.ac.at/id/eprint/5558/1/ihs-report-2020-grosch-haeckl-kocher-bauer-mint-interesse-bei-kindern-steigern.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2023).
  56. Blömeke, S.; Gustafsson, J.-E.; Shavelson, R.J. Beyond dichotomies—Competence viewed as a continuum. Z. Psychol. 2015, 223, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chapman, R. A case study of gendered play in preschools: How early childhood educators’ perceptions of gender influence children’s play. Early Child Dev. Care 2016, 186, 1271–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Luttenberger, S.; Wimmer, S.; Paechter, M. Spotlight on math anxiety. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2018, 11, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Truitt, D.L. The Effect of Training and Development on Employee Attitude as it Relates to Training and Work Proficiency. SAGE Open 2011, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Marsh, H.W.; Trautwein, U.; Ludtke, O.; Koller, O.; Baumert, J. Academic self-concept, interest, grades and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Dev. 2005, 76, 397–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Heyder, A.; Steinmayr, R.; Kessels, U. (Do teachers’ beliefs about math aptitude and brilliance explain gender differences in children’s math self-concept? Front. Educ. 2019, 4, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kollmayer, M.; Schober, B.; Spiel, C. Gender stereotypes in education: Development, consequences, and interventions. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2018, 15, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ari, F.; Arslan-Ari, I.; Vasconcelos, L. Early Childhood Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Computer Science, Gender Stereotypes, and Coding in Early Childhood Education. Technol. Trends 2022, 66, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Chick, K.A.; Heilman-Houser, R.A.; Hunter, M.W. The Impact of Child Care on Gender Role Development and Gender Stereotypes. Early Child. Educ. J. 2002, 29, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Heckman, J.J. Selection bias and self-selection. In Econometrics; Durlauf, S.N., Blume, L.E., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 1990; pp. 201–224. [Google Scholar]
  66. Wrumnig, D. Masterarbeitsvorstellung. MINT in der Elementarpädagogik. Eine triangulative Studie zur Bedeutung von MINT in der elementarpädagogischen Praxis und den aktuell fachdidaktischen MINT-Kompetenzen frühpädagogischer Fachkräfte in Österreich. ElFo Elem. Forschungsbeiträge 2021, 3, 98–102. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wei, F.-YF.; Hendrix, K.G. Gender differences in preschool children’s recall of competitive and noncompetitive computer mathematics games. Learn. Media Technol. 2009, 34, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 00081 g001
Figure 1. Social self-concept.
Figure 1. Social self-concept.
Education 14 00081 g001
Education 14 00081 g002
Figure 2. Absolute self-concept.
Figure 2. Absolute self-concept.
Education 14 00081 g002
Education 14 00081 g003
Figure 3. Professional self-concept.
Figure 3. Professional self-concept.
Education 14 00081 g003
Education 14 00081 g004
Figure 4. Stereotypes on interest.
Figure 4. Stereotypes on interest.
Education 14 00081 g004
Education 14 00081 g005
Figure 5. Stereotypes on abilities.
Figure 5. Stereotypes on abilities.
Education 14 00081 g005
Table 1. Temporal design, measures.
Table 1. Temporal design, measures.
Kick-Off Event,
Introduction (Phase 1)		Online Modules
(Phase 2)		In-Person Workshop (Phase 3)Implementation (Phase 4)Closing Event
(Phase 5)
Point in Timet1t2t3t4t5
Aims, setupOpening session; getting to know each other, reflection on own practice; online, synchronous.Self-regulated learning online, asynchronous. Reflection and discussions.In-person workshop with didactic examples.Implementation of the didactic examples. Reflection and discussions.Exchange of experiences; online synchronous.
AssessmentsAcademic and professional self-concept, stereotypes. Overall evaluation. Self-concept, stereotypes.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for evaluation variables, training sample (n = 30).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for evaluation variables, training sample (n = 30).
Overall SatisfactionAssessment of Learning AchievementsUsefulness of Training
MSDminmaxMSDminmaxMSDminmax
5.201.031365.101.269265.430.89836
Note. n = 30; all assessments measured on a 6-point scale. Higher values indicate a more positive assessment.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the self-concept variables, whole sample, training and control group at t1 and t5.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the self-concept variables, whole sample, training and control group at t1 and t5.
Whole Sample (n = 55)Training Group (n = 30)Control Group (n = 25)
Variable, Point in TimeMSDminmaxMSDminmaxMSDminmax
Social self-concept (t1)4.310.8292.256.004.640.6353.006.003.910.8692.255.75
Social self-concept (t5)4.570.9932.007.004.850.7034.006.254.191.1712.007.00
Absolute self-concept (t1)4.730.9752.757.005.020.7773.506.504.391.092.757.00
Absolute self-concept (t5)4.871.0432.257.005.280.7263.756.754.391.172.257.00
Professional self-concept (t1)3.250.4082.134.003.290.3702.503.883.190.4492.134.00
Professional self-concept (t5)3.410.4552.004.003.580.3152.754.003.200.5122.004.00
Note. Social and absolute self-concept were measured on a 7-point scale; professional self-concept was measured on a 4-point scale. Higher values indicate a higher (more positive) self-concept.
Table 4. MANOVA results for single variables (F-values, df, p-values, η2) for factors time, group, group × time (n = 55).
Table 4. MANOVA results for single variables (F-values, df, p-values, η2) for factors time, group, group × time (n = 55).
VariableFdfp-Valueη2
GroupSocial self-concept12.28710.0010.188
Absolute self-concept9.79110.0030.156
Professional self-concept5.93710.0180.101
TimeSocial self-concept6.38610.0150.108
Absolute self-concept2.48210.1210.045
Professional self-concept8.94610.0040.144
Group × timeSocial self-concept0.02010.8870.001
Absolute self-concept2.48210.1210.045
Professional self-concept7.79910.0070.128
Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the stereotype variables, whole sample, training and control group at t1 and t5.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the stereotype variables, whole sample, training and control group at t1 and t5.
Whole Sample (n = 55)Training Group (n = 30)Control Group (n = 25)
Variable, Point in TimeMSDminmaxMSDminmaxMSDminmax
Stereotypes on interests (t1)2.580.7791.004.252.850.7091.004.252.240.7411.003.75
Stereotypes on interests (t5)2.290.6911.003.752.350.6181.503.752.230.7801.003.75
Stereotypes on abilities (t1)1.830.7361.003.431.920.6801.003.431.690.7851.003.43
Stereotypes on abilities (t5)1.640.6401.003.571.680.7401.002.571.600.5441.003.57
Note. Stereotypes were measured on a 5-point scale. Higher values indicate stronger gender stereotypes.
Table 6. MANOVA results for single variables (F-values, df, p-values, η2) for factors time, group × time.
Table 6. MANOVA results for single variables (F-values, df, p-values, η2) for factors time, group × time.
VariableFdfp-Valueη2
GroupStereotypes on interests4.22310.0450.074
Stereotypes on abilities0.25110.6180.005
TimeStereotypes on interests9.10110.040.147
Stereotypes on abilities7.28310.0090.121
Group × timeStereotypes on interests8.43410.0050.137
Stereotypes on abilities6.33610.0150.107
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Feierabend, S.; Hasenhütl, S.; Paechter, M.; Luttenberger, S.; Eglmaier, M.W.T.; Eichen, L. Increasing Self-Concept and Decreasing Gender Stereotypes in STEM through Professional Development for Early Childhood Educators. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010081

AMA Style

Feierabend S, Hasenhütl S, Paechter M, Luttenberger S, Eglmaier MWT, Eichen L. Increasing Self-Concept and Decreasing Gender Stereotypes in STEM through Professional Development for Early Childhood Educators. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(1):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010081

Chicago/Turabian Style

Feierabend, Sarah, Sabine Hasenhütl, Manuela Paechter, Silke Luttenberger, Marina W. T. Eglmaier, and Lars Eichen. 2024. "Increasing Self-Concept and Decreasing Gender Stereotypes in STEM through Professional Development for Early Childhood Educators" Education Sciences 14, no. 1: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010081

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop