Gender in STEM Education: an Exploratory Study of Student Perceptions of Math and Science Instructors in the United Arab Emirates



The current study addresses student perceptions of math and science professors in the Middle East. Gender disparity in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education continues to exist in higher education, with male professors holding a normative position. This disparity can also be seen in the United Arab Emirates. As female participation in STEM education lags behind men, it is possible that gender stereotypes may influence students’ first impressions of male and female instructors. The United Arab Emirates provides a unique context to study this phenomenon as it is a traditional patriarchal society that is highly dependent on the engineering discipline, especially within the oil and gas sectors. A total of 176 undergraduate students from 2 universities in the United Arab Emirates completed a survey about teaching effectiveness based on their perceptions of photographs of hypothetical male and female instructors. A factor analysis of survey items revealed 2 main subcategories of teacher effectiveness: namely teacher warmth and professionalism. A 2-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of teacher gender and student gender on perceptions of overall teaching effectiveness, as well as their perceptions of teacher warmth and professionalism. Findings revealed that there was a significant cross-gender effect on student perceptions of math and science instructors in the United Arab Emirates.


Gender Math and science teachers Students’ perceptions Teaching effectiveness 


  1. Ali, S. (2009). Teaching English as an International Language (EIL) in the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) countries: The brown man’s burden. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 34–57). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 580–583. doi: 10.2307/3587841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, K. & Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS: Political Science & Politics, 30(02), 216–219.Google Scholar
  5. Bachen, C. M., McLoughlin, M. M. & Garcia, S. S. (1999). Assessing the role of gender in college students’ evaluations of faculty. Communication Education, 48(3), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barclay, D., Higgins, C. & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and uses as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285–309.Google Scholar
  7. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 16(Series B), 296–298.Google Scholar
  8. Basow, S. A. (2000). Best and worst professors: Gender patterns in students’ choices. Sex Roles, 43(5–6), 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Basow, S. A. & Silberg, N. T. (1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and male professors rated differently? Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 308–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett, S. K. (1982). Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berry, D. S. (1990). Taking people at face value: Evidence for the kernel of truth hypothesis. Social Cognition, 8, 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review, 95(2), 152–157.Google Scholar
  13. Bianchini, S., Lissoni, F. & Pezzoni, M. (2013). Instructor characteristics and students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  14. Branscombe, N. R., & Smith, E. R. (1990). Gender and racial stereotypes in impression formation and social decision-making processes. Sex Roles, 22(9–10), 627–647.Google Scholar
  15. Buck, S., & Tiene, D. (1989). The impact of physical attractiveness, gender, and teaching philosophy on teacher evaluations. The Journal of Educational Research, 82(3), 172–177.Google Scholar
  16. Ceci, S. J. & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Centra, J. A., & Gaubatz, N. B. (2000). Is there gender bias in student evaluations of teaching? Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 17–33.Google Scholar
  18. 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, 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chin, W.W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly22(1), vii–xvi.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis: A computer program. Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Committee on Gender Differences in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty (2010). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cunningham, G. B., Sartore, M. L., Chaney, J. D., & Chaney, E. (2009). Student ratings of women and men in the classroom: A match-up hypothesis perspective. American Journal of Health Studies, 24(3), 365–373.Google Scholar
  23. Dixon, T. L. & Maddox, K. B. (2005). Skin tone, crime news, and social reality judgments: Priming the stereotype of the dark and dangerous black criminal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(8), 1555–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Etaugh, C. & Riley, S. (1983). Evaluating competence of women and men: Effects of marital and parental status and occupational sex-typing. Sex Roles, 9, 943–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 357–411). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuated processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 1–74). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Fornell, C. & Larker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman, H. R. (1994). Student evaluations of college instructors: Effects of type of course taught, instructor gender and gender role, and student gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 627–630.Google Scholar
  30. Gandara, F. & Silva, M. (2015). Understanding the gender gap in science and engineering: Evidence from the Chilean college admissions tests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10763-015-9637-2.
  31. Ginther D. K. & Kahn S. (2006). Does science promote women? Evidence from academia 1973–2001. Cambridge, England: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from
  32. Griffin, A. M. & Langlois, J. H. (2006). Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24(2), 187–206.Google Scholar
  33. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Heilman, M. E. (1984). Information as a deterrent against sex discrimination: The effects of applicant sex and information type on preliminary employment decisions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 33, 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kapiszewski, A. (2006). Arab versus Asian migrant workers in the GCC countries. In United Nations Expert Group Meeting on International Migration and Development in the Arab Region (pp. 1-21). Beirut, Lebanon: United Nations Secretariat.
  38. Kierstead, D., D’Agostino, P. & Dill, H. (1988). Sex role stereotyping of college professors: Bias in student ratings of instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 342–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. King, M. (2013). Championing Indian TESOL teachers in the Arabian Gulf. Journal of ESL Teachers and Learners, 2, 163–170.Google Scholar
  40. Little, A. C. & Perrett, D. I. (2007). Using composite images to assess accuracy in personality attribution to faces. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for math science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacNell, L., Driscoll, A. & Hunt, A.N. (2014). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4.
  43. Macrae, C. N., Mitchell, J. P. & Pendry, L. F. (2002). What’s in a forename: Cue familiarity and stereotypical thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mahani, S. & Molki, A. (2011). Factors influencing female Emirati students’ decision to study engineering. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 13(1), 26–31.Google Scholar
  45. Makhmasi, S., Zaki, R., Barada, H. & Al-Hammadi, Y. (2012). Gender perceptions of STEM education among UAE students. In Proceedings of SCET Spring World Congress on Engineering and Technology Conference, Xi’an, China.Google Scholar
  46. Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D. & O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Merritt, R. D. & Harrison, T. W. (2006). Gender and ethnicity attributions to a gender-and ethnicity-unspecified individual: Is there a people = white male bias? Sex Roles, 54(11–12), 787–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moghadam, V. M. (2004). Patriarchy in transition: Women and the changing family in the Middle East. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35(2),137–162.Google Scholar
  49. Moru, E. K., Persens, J. & Breiteig, T. (2010). Investigating a possible gap between students’ expectations and perceptions: The case of a pre-entry science program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moshavi, D., Dana, S., Standifird, S. S. & Pons, F. (2008). Gender effects in the business school classroom: A social power perspective. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  51. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J. & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. & Gross, J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Norton, B. & Syed, Z. (2003). TESOL in the Gulf: The sociocultural context of English language teaching in the Gulf. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  55. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  56. Pasha-Zaidi, N., Holtby, A., Afari, E., & Thomson, D. (2014). Face value: The effect of ethnicity and gender on student expectations of english language instructors in the UAE. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 2(1), 54–68. Retrieved from
  57. Quinn, K. A., Macrae, C. N. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2003). Stereotyping and impression formation: How categorical thinking shapes person perception. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 87–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Richardson, P. M. (2004). Possible influences of Arabic-Islamic culture on the reflective practices proposed for an education degree at the Higher Colleges of Technology in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(4), 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ridge, N. (2010). Teacher quality, gender and nationality in the United Arab Emirates: A crisis for boys. Dubai, United Arab Emirates: Dubai School of Government.Google Scholar
  60. Riegle-Crumb, C. & King, B. (2010). Questioning a white male advantage in STEM examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 656–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shah, R. & Ogden, J. (2006). ‘What’s in a face?’ The role of doctor ethnicity, age and gender in the formation of patients’ judgements: An experimental study. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(2), 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shapiro, J. R. & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sprinkle, J. E. (2008). Student perceptions of effectiveness: An examination of the influence of student biases. College Student Journal, 42(2), 276.Google Scholar
  64. Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A. & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the CVs of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Trix, F. & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14, 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. United Arab Emirates National Bureau of Statistics. (2010). UAE in figures. Retrieved from
  68. Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Walton, G. & Cohen, H. (2007). A question of fit: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [computer software]. State College: Ed & Psych Associates.Google Scholar
  71. Wheeler, M. E. & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Controlling racial prejudice social-cognitive goals affect amygdala and stereotype activation. Psychological Science, 16(1), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilkins, S. & Epps, A. (2011). Student evaluation web sites as potential sources of consumer information in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(5), 410–422.Google Scholar
  73. Willis, J. & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Petroleum InstituteAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations