2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102088
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigating gender differences among tutors and students during STEM peer tutoring: Women are as behaviorally engaged as men but experience more negative affect

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 134 publications
2
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our insight surrounding gender might be valuable, especially considering that they only differed regarding negative affect. These findings are in line with previous research that have found women to experience more frequent negative affect, as demonstrated with a Dutch sample when validating the Dutch PANAS (Engelen et al, 2006 ) as well as in STEM students when tutoring (Dumitru et al, 2022 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Our insight surrounding gender might be valuable, especially considering that they only differed regarding negative affect. These findings are in line with previous research that have found women to experience more frequent negative affect, as demonstrated with a Dutch sample when validating the Dutch PANAS (Engelen et al, 2006 ) as well as in STEM students when tutoring (Dumitru et al, 2022 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Our insights surrounding gender might be valuable, especially considering that they only differed regarding negative affect. These findings are in line with previous research that have found women to experience more frequent negative affect, as demonstrated with a Dutch sample when validating the Dutch PANAS (Engelen et al, 2006) as well as in STEM students when tutoring (Dumitru et al, 2022).…”
Section: Student Well-being During Covid-19supporting
confidence: 92%
“…They encompass all manner of gaps in all STEMM fields across age groups, educational levels, and scale levels. The following list illustrates the prevalence, extreme diversity, and complexity of the subject: Kinds of gaps: excellence gap, 16,17 pay gap, 18,19 achievement gap, 20 confidence gap, 21,22 opportunity gap, 23,24 representation gap 25 STEMM‐fields: astronomy, 26,27 biology, 28,29 chemistry, 30,31 engineering, 32,33 geosciences, 34,35 computer science, 36 math, 37,38 medicine, 39,40 pharmacy, 41,42 physics 43,44 Age groups: early childhood, 45 childhood, 46,47 youth and adolescence, 48,49 adulthood 50,51 Educational levels: kindergarten, 52,53 elementary education, 23,54 secondary education, 55,56 higher education, 57,58 vocational education 59,60 Kinds of groups: ethnicity, 48,61 gender and sex, 62,63 immigrants, 64,65 migrants, 66,67 generational, 68,69 sexual orientation and gender identity, 70,71 countries, 72,73 special educational needs and disabilities, 45,71 twice exceptional 74 Scale levels: geography, 75,76 culture, 77,78 institutions and organizations, 79,80 schools, 56,81 groups, 61,82 family 83,84 …”
Section: Inequalities and Equity Gaps In Stemm Talent Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%