图书馆订阅: Guest
Begell Digital Portal Begell 数字图书馆 电子图书 期刊 参考文献及会议录 研究收集
SJR: 0.468 SNIP: 0.671 CiteScore™: 1.65

ISSN 打印: 1072-8325
ISSN 在线: 1940-431X


DOI: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2019027238
pages 211-229


Jennifer Paff Ogle
Department of Design & Merchandising, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1574, USA
Karen H. Hyllegard
Department of Design & Merchandising, Colorado State University, 1574 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1574
Juyeon Park
Department of Textiles, Merchandising & Fashion Design, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea


With this work, we explore outcomes of participation in Fashion FUNdamentals (FF), a STEM summer enrichment program designed exclusively for middle school girls which is grounded in worldview theory and research on the maker movement suggesting that adolescent girls' "passion for fashion" can be harnessed to build their interest and skills in the STEM disciplines and to nurture their self-confidence and self-esteem. Data were collected via focus groups with 69 girls who had participated in the program. Eight focus groups were conducted across three summers (2015–2017), and participants ranged in age from 10 to 13 (mean age = 11.3 years). The qualitative data were analyzed using constant comparison processes. Analyses revealed that girls perceived that participating in the STEM program shaped them in four primary ways: (a) expanding their understanding of the global textile and apparel industry as a STEM-based discipline, (b) enriching their understanding of conventional STEM disciplines, (c) building a foundation for personal/social-psychological well-being, and (d) building a foundation for academic and professional success. Additionally, because the focus group methodology is well-suited for delineating a diversity of participant experiences, we identified a fifth theme: (e) revealing trials encountered as a program participant and opportunities to strengthen the program. Taken together, the findings provide support for the central premise of worldview theory and findings from research on the maker movement, namely, that STEM learning can be fostered by linking educational content to subjects—such as art, craft, design, and fashion—that girls often find to be personally meaningful and engaging.


  1. Barniskis, S. C. (2014). STEAM: Science and art meet in rural library makerspaces. In iConference 2014 Proceedings, 834-837. .

  2. Beaudoin, P., Lachance, M. J., & Robitaille, J. (2006). Fashion innovativeness, fashion diffusion and brand sensitivity among adolescents. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 7(1), 23-30. .

  3. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971-1002. .

  4. Buck, G. A., Leslie-Pelecky, D., & Kirby, S. K. (2002). Bringing female scientists into the elementary classroom: Confronting the strength of elementary students' stereotypical images of scientists. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(1), 1-9. .

  5. Carter, V., Beachner, M., & Daugherty, M. K. (2015). Family and consumer sciences and STEM integration. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 107(1), 55-58. .

  6. Casey, B. (2012). STEM Education: Preparing for the jobs of the future. Washington, DC: US Congress Joint Economic Committee. .

  7. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045-1060. .

  8. Cobern, W. W. (1994). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Scientific Literacy and Cultural Studies Project, 15. .

  9. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. .

  10. Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 231-246. .

  11. Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21-29. .

  12. Demetry, C., Hudelbank, J., Blaisdell, S. L., Sontgerath, S., Nicholson, M. E., Rosenthal, L., & Quinn, P. (2009). Supporting young women to enter engineering: Long-term effects of a middle school engineering outreach program for girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15(2), 119-142. .

  13. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and math careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051-1057. .

  14. Drake-Bridges, E., & Burgess, B. (2010). Personal preferences of tween shoppers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 14(4), 624-633. .

  15. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103-127. .

  16. Fadigan, K. A., & Hammerich, P. L. (2004). A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science educational program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 835-860. .

  17. Faulkner, S. (2014). Women who make: Women are undercounted as makers and underwhelmed by makerspaces. In J. Axup, A. Thomas, A. Waldman, S. Faulkner, C. Odman-Govender, J. St. Leger, J. Polka, M. Gregg, & B. D. Johnson (Eds.), Computer, 47(12), 24-40. .

  18. Faulkner, S., & McClard, A. (2014). Making change: Can ethnographic research about women makers change the future of computing? Proceedings of the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference, 2014(1), 187-198. .

  19. Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 203-220. .

  20. Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (2004). Secondary student perceptions of classroom quality: Instrumentation and differences between advanced/honors and nonhonors classes. Journal of Advanced Academics, 16(1), 20-29. .

  21. Geist, E. A., & King, M. (2008). Different, not better: Gender differences in mathematics learning and achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(1), 43-52. .

  22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction. .

  23. Halpern, D. F. (2004). A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differences in cognitive abilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 135-139. .

  24. Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., & de Miranda, M. A. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 107-120. .

  25. Horting, K. (2016). Closing the gender gap through STEM. Machine Design. Retrieved from http://www. machinedesign.com/engineering-essentials/closing-gender-gap-through-stem .

  26. Hyllegard, K. H., Rambo-Hernandez, K., & Ogle, J. P. (2017). Fashion FUNdamentals: Building middle school girls' self-esteem and interest in STEM. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 23(1), 87-99. .

  27. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for qualitative data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557-584. .

  28. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of techniques and a framework for selection of school psychology research and beyond. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 587-604. .

  29. Long, C. (2012). Teach your students to fail better with design thinking. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(5), 16-20. .

  30. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. .

  31. Merton, R. K., & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The focused interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51(6), 541-557. .

  32. Minnesota State CAREERwise Education. (2018). Women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Retrieved from https://careerwise.minnstate.edu/careers/womenstem.html .

  33. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Education Psychology, 85(3), 424-436. .

  34. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879-885. .

  35. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. .

  36. Ogle, J. P., Hyllegard, K. H., Rambo-Hernandez, K., & Park, J. (2017). Building middle school girls' self-efficacy, knowledge, and interest in math and science through the integration of fashion and STEM. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 109(4), 33-40. .

  37. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1-21. .

  38. Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and the creative society. In D. G. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 192-208). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. .

  39. Roue, L. C. (2007). Young women's perceptions of technology and engineering: Factors influencing their participation in math, science, and technology (Master's thesis). University of Wisconsin-Stout, Stout, WI. .

  40. Shuen, J. A., Elia, A. R., Xu, K., Chen, C.-F. J., Jiang, A., Litkowski, E., Bonhivert, A., Hsu-Kim, H., & Scwartz-Bloom, R. D. (2011). FEMMES: A one-day mentorship program to engage 4th-6th grade girls in STEM activities. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 17(4), 295-312. .

  41. Shirley, L. M., & Kohler, J. (2012). Clothing and textiles: Reinforcing STEM education through family and consumer sciences curriculum. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 30(2), 46-56. .

  42. Slavkin, M. (2001). Problem solving in the natural sciences and early adolescent girls' gender roles and self-esteem: A qualitative and quantitative analysis from an ecological perspective. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(3), 50-77. .

  43. St. Leger, J. (2014). Making the next-gengineers. In J. Axup, A. Thomas, A. Waldman, S. Faulkner, C. Odman-Govender, J. St. Leger, J. Polka, M. Gregg, & B. D. Johnson (Eds.), Computer, 47(12), 24-40. .

  44. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2015). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. .

  45. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255-270. .

  46. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. .

  47. Valla, J. M., & Williams, W. M. (2012). Increasing achievement and higher-education representation of underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields: A review of current K-12 intervention programs. Journal of Women Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18(1), 21-53. .