GoldieBlox™inthe2ndand3rdGrade:FinalReport
SarahAnneEckert,Ph.D.
CenterfortheAdvancementofGirls,TheAgnesIrwinSchool
MariandlM.C.Hufford,Ed.M.,M.S.Ed.,M.S.Ed.
CenterfortheAdvancementofGirls,TheAgnesIrwinSchool
Introduction
AccordingtotheUSBureauofLaborandStatistics(2013),only14.1ofthearchitectsand
engineersintheUnitedStateswerewomen.Lookingfurtheratthisstatisic,while25%ofarchitectsinthe
USin2013werewomen,only7.2%ofMechanicalEngineerswerewomen
(http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf).Oneproposedmethodofcombatingthisgendergapistoexpose
girlstothekindsoftoysthatdevelopaninterestinbuildingthataretypicallymarketedtowardsboys.One
suchtoy,GoldieBlox™,wascreatedbyafemaleengineerwhowaskeenlyawareofthedearthof
femalesinengineering.TheGoldieBlox™websiteclaimsthat“Bytappingintogirls’strongverbalskills,
ourstoryandconstructionsetbolstersconfidenceinspatialskillswhilegivingyounginventorsthetools
theyneedtobuildandcreateamazingthings”(http://www.GoldieBlox.com/pages/about).Inotherwords,
GoldieBlox™isnotjustapinksetofconstructiontools,itisatoydesignedbasedonresearchthatstates
girlsaremoreengagedwhentheirverbalskillsareemployed.Thispaperoutlinestheproceduresand
resultsofaoneyearevaluationoftheefficacyofGoldieBlox™toachievethosestatedgoalswithin2nd
and3rdgradeclassroomsatonegirls’schooloutsideofPhiladelphia.Inordertoexaminethe
effectivenessofthisconstructiontoy,weaskthequestions:
● IstherearelationshipbetweenaccesstoGoldieBlox™andanincreasedinclinationtobuild,fixor
experiment?
● Arethechangesindesiretobuild,fixorexperimentgreaterforsecondorthirdgrade?
1
WeconcludeourreportwithrecommendationsregardingtheuseofGoldieBlox™intheclassroomand
discussareasoffutureresearch.
BackgroundInformation
LiteratureReview
Statisticalevidencedocumentsthatthereisacleargapbetweenthenumberofmenandwomen
whoareemployedinengineeringfieldsintheUnitedStates,yettheexactcauseoftheengineeringgender
gapisnotknown(USBureauofLaborandStatistics,2013).Researchershavelongpositedthat
discriminationininterviewingandhiring,allocationofresources,choice(eitherconstrainedorfree)and
stereotypethreatallmayplayaroleinthelimitednumberoffemaleengineersintheU.S.today(Ambady
etal,2004;Sadleretal,2012;Ceci&Williams,2011;Halpernetal,2007).Whilediscriminationin
interviewingandhiringmayhavebeenaninitialfactorinthegendergap,researchindicatesthatsuch
discriminationisnolongerapparent(Ceci&Williams,2011).Moreimportantly,thegendergapisalready
presentwhenstudentsentercollegeandselectamajor,thereforehiringpracticescannotbethesoleor
maincauseofthegendergapinengineering.AccordingtotheNationalScienceFoundation(2013),in
2010womencompleted50.3%ofallBachelor’sdegreesinSTEMfields,45.5%Masters’degreesin
STEMfieldsand40.9%ofDoctoratesinSTEMfields.However,only1.4%offemalecollegegraduates
in2010completedabachelor’sdegreeinEngineeringascomparedwith8.5%ofmalecollegegraduates.
Putanotherway,only18.4%of2010bachelor’sdegreesinEngineeringwereawardedtowomen(NSF,
2013).Thisdisparitywassimilar,yetslightlysmaller,forMaster’sdegreesandDoctoraldegrees.
Accordingtothesestatistics,thereisclearlysomecauseforthelackoffemaleengineersthatbegins
beforecollegematriculation.
Onepotentialreasonforthegendergapinengineeringfieldsisthatwomenarriveatcollege
withouttheprerequisiteMathandSciencecoursesandarethereforeunderpreparedforEngineering
2
majors.In2005,accordingtotheNation’sReportCard,femalehighschoolstudentscompletedmore
creditsinMathandSciencethanmalesdidandhadhigheroverallGPAsinMathandScience(Shettleet
al,2007).However,atthesametimemaleshadslightlyhigherscoresontheNationalAssessmentof
EducationalProgress(NAEP)forMathandScienceandmalestudentsweremorelikelytohave
completedPhysicsandCalculuswhereasgirlsweremorelikelytohavecompletedChemistryandBiology
(Halpernetal,2007).Theaforementioneddifferences,notably,weresmall(about1or3percentage
points).By2009malescontinuedtoachievehigherNAEPscoresandtheybegantoclosegapsinGPA
andcoursetaking(Nordetal,2011).Furthermore,whilefemalesweremorelikelytocompletea
challengingcurriculum,femaleswhodidnotcompleteachallengingcurriculumweremorelikelytobe
missingMathandSciencecoursesthanmaleswhodidnotcompleteachallengingcurriculum(Nordetal,
2011).Whiletherearesomegendergapsinhighschoolcoursetaking,theresultsoftheNation’sReport
Carddoindicatethatwomenarriveatcollegewithatleastasimilarsetofprerequisitecoursesin
preparationforengineeringfields.
Thefindingthatwomenaremuchlesslikelytopursueengineeringdegreesdespitearrivingat
collegewithsimilarmathandscienceprerequisitesasmenindicatesthatthereislikelyadegreeofchoice
(albeitacomplexchoice)involvedintheengineeringgendergap.Recently,researchershavebegun
exploringvariousfactorsoverthecourseofthelifetimethatcouldinfluencethatchoice.Inasubstantial
reviewofliteratureCeciandWilliams(2011)suggestthatthethreemostlikelyreasonsforthelackof
womenpursuingMathintensiveSTEMdegrees(likeEngineering)include:fertility/lifestylechoices,
preferenceforacareerinvolvingpeopleandabilitydifferencesspecificallyspatialabilitiesthatareoften
linkedwithfieldslikeengineering(Hill,Corbett&Rose,2010).Notably,Ganley&Vasilyeva(2011)
explainthat,whilegirlsdotrailboysinspatialreasoning,girls’spatialreasoningabilitiesdonotpredict
achievement.Whilespatialabilitiesdonothindergirls’achievement,itisfeasiblethattheymightimpact
choicemaking.Therearemanyfactorsthatcaninfluencegirls’choicemakingsurroundingparticipationin
3
STEMfields,butCeci&Williamsexplainthatallofthesefactors(includingspatialabilities)couldbe
influencedbysocializationbeginningpriortoadolescence.
Basedonatheoryofsocialization,thegendergapinengineeringislikelyattributabletowhat
SherylSandbergreferstoasan“ambitiongap”(2013,p.15)thatislikelycausedbysomeofthesame
culturalinfluencesthatSandbergcitesinrelationtoaleadershipambitiongap(Hill,Corbett&Rose,2010).
Ambadyetal.(2001)andAmbadyetal(2003)explainthatonecauseofthisambitiongapinSTEM
concernsstereotypethreat.Inotherwords,femalestudentswhobelievethattheyarelikelytodoubttheir
ownabilitiesbecauseofaperceivedassumptionthatgirlsarenotasstronginSTEMfieldsduetocultural
genderroles(Hill,Corbett&Rose,2010).SelfdoubtinSTEMfieldscanbeconceptualizedasalow
selfefficacyinscience,whichcanhaveamajorimpactonperformanceandpersistence.Sadleretal
(2012)explainthatduringhighschool,interestinSTEMcareersremainsstableformalesbutdeclines