Australia’s National 
Science Agency 

P1TB8bA#y1 


P2TB11bA#y1
Australia’s National 
Science Agency 


Engaging Young Female 
Students in Digital 
Technology 
Programs 

 

 
Part Two: Primary Research Project 
Report for CSIRO 

Kristy Osborne, Rachel Felgate and Sarah Buckley 

April 2023 

 

Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), 
Australian Government Department of Industry, Science and 
Resources 

 

 

P11#yIS1
P11#yIS2 





 

Citation 

Osborne K, Felgate R and Buckley S (2023). Engaging Young Female Students in Digital Technology 
Programs: Part Two. CSIRO, Australia 

Copyright 

© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 20XX. To the extent permitted 
by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be 
reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO. 

Important disclaimer 

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements 
based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information 
may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must 
therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and 
technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) 
excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, 
damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this 
publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. 

CSIRO is committed to providing web accessible content wherever possible. If you are having 
difficulties with accessing this document please contact csiro.au/contact.


Contents 

 
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... v 
Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... vi 
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7 
2 Teacher and Student Perspectives .................................................................................... 8 
2.1 Approach to teacher survey and student workshops ........................................... 8 
2.2 Findings from the teacher survey and student workshops ................................ 10 
3 Tertiary Perspectives ......................................................................................................... 5 
3.1 Approach to tertiary interviews ........................................................................... 5 
3.2 Findings from tertiary interviews ......................................................................... 6 
3.3 Identifying barriers to digital technologies engagement in undergraduate and 
postgraduate courses ........................................................................................................ 7 
3.4 Prior exposure ...................................................................................................... 9 
3.5 Financial ............................................................................................................. 10 
4 Key findings and strategies for the future ....................................................................... 12 
4.1 Representation and digital technology in schools, tertiary institutions, and the 
media ........................................................................................................................... 12 
4.2 Inclusivity and the culture of learning in digital technologies education ........... 12 
4.3 Supporting teachers running CEdO programs .................................................... 13 
4.4 Connecting research findings with Part One recommendations ........................ 13 
Teacher Survey Frequencies .............................................................................. 16 
CSIRO program awareness ................................................................................. 19 
Digital Technology in your school ...................................................................... 22 
Barriers and Enablers to Participation ................................................................ 25References ........................................................................................................................... 51 

Figures 
Figure 2.1 Perceived practice impact of CSIRO programs (Bebras N=29, CyberTaipan N=6) ....... 11 
Figure 2.2 Perceived impact of CSIRO programs on professional identity and confidence (N=32) 
.................................................................................................................................................... 12 
Figure 2.3 Student attitudes to STEM and digital technology at school (N=14) .......................... 13 
Figure 2.4 Perceived confidence in teaching digital technology by teacher type (N=129) .......... 14 
Figure 2.5 Perceived confidence in teaching digital technology for digital technology teachers by 
school type (N=85) ...................................................................................................................... 15 
Figure 2.6 Perceived confidence of students in learning different subjects (Teachers N=129, 
Students N=14) ........................................................................................................................... 16 
Figure 2.7 Perceived confidence of students in learning different subjects by school type 
(N=129) ....................................................................................................................................... 17 
Figure 2.8 Agreement levels for teachers regarding digital technology and STEM emphasis and 
cultivation (N=129) ..................................................................................................................... 19 
Figure 2.9 Agreement levels regarding digital technology stereotypes and careers (Teachers 
N=129, Students N=14) ............................................................................................................... 19 
Figure 2.10 Agreement levels regarding factors that are important in attitudes towards digital 
technology (Teachers N=129, Students N=14) .............................................................................. 2 
Tables 

Table 1 Characteristics of teacher questionnaire respondents ..................................................... 8 
Table 2 Characteristics of student forum participants ................................................................ 10 
Table 3 Digital technology resources (N=32) ............................................................................... 12 
Table 4 Questions asked in tertiary interviews ............................................................................. 5 
Table 5 Summary of recommendations from Part One of the project linked to Part Two findings 
.................................................................................................................................................... 13 



Acknowledgments 

This publication is supported by the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science and 
Resources through the CSIRO Digital Careers Program. 

 


Executive summary 

Part Two of the larger project relates to a primary research project designed to gain further insight 
into the factors that facilitate and hinder young female students’ engagement with digital 
technologies and STEM. To achieve this aim, the research project focused on gaining the 
perspectives of Australian teachers including those involved in CEdO programs, a small group of 
students aged 14-16 years, and a sample of STEM educators in tertiary institutions. 

This report firstly outlines the approach used to gain the perspectives of the first and second 
groups, namely: 

• A sample of Australian teachers 

• A sample of students aged 14-16 years. 

This is followed by a findings section which integrates the teacher and student data to discuss key 
themes that emerged from the analyses. The next section outlines the method and findings for the 
third group, a sample of STEM educators in tertiary institutions. 

The final section of this report presents the key findings that emerged across the different data 
collected in the research project. It also connects these findings to the recommendations made in 
the Part One report to illustrate the links between the two aspects of the project. 

 


1 Introduction 

Promoting student engagement with STEM, including digital technologies, is crucial for the 
national interests of Australia for several reasons. Firstly, at the macro level, ensuring a digitally 
literate workforce is at the heart of the Australian government’s tech future agenda, and 
considered vital for the economy (Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, 
Energy and Resources, 2018). Secondly, at the micro level, STEM skills are often highly valued in 
the workforce and individuals with these skills have more opportunities in the labour market. 
However, the recent national STEM Equity Monitor summary report (Australian Government 
Department of Industry, Science, Energy & Resources, 2020a) shows that females continue to be 
under-represented in STEM tertiary education programs and in the STEM workforce. Australia has 
a significant gender divide, with females accounting for only 39% of information media and 
telecommunications graduates (Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy 
and Resources, 2018). This disparity widens when considering the workforce, with 2019 data 
showing only 14% of jobs requiring STEM qualifications were held by females (STEM Equity 
Monitor, 2020). Investigating ways to improve female engagement with digital technologies is 
therefore important for ensuring equity in the field and is a priority for the Commonwealth 
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). 

This report is part of a larger project commissioned by CSIRO and designed to highlight the 
enablers and barriers to young female students engaging with digital technology through a 
primary research project. This research aimed to gain insight from teachers, students and tertiary 
educators in order to trace the pathway from primary through to tertiary digital technology 
education. The perspectives of these stakeholders are compared with the findings from Part One 
of the project. 

 

Please note that in this report, the term ‘female’ includes those who are cisgender, transgender, 
non-binary, and intersex persons who identify as female. 

 


2 Teacher and Student Perspectives 

2.1 Approach to teacher survey and student workshops 

The general teacher survey was designed to gather views relating to: 

• attitudes towards science, mathematics, engineering and digital technology, 

• whether female and male students view subjects differently, 

• how digital technology is taught in the classroom, and barriers and enablers to student 
participation, and 

• STEM in the workplace. 

The teacher survey was delivered online through the secure PeoplePulse platform. Teachers were 
recruited and informed about the study via an advertisement about the research project 
delivered in the CSIRO Digital Careers’ newsletter, an article in Teacher magazine 
(https://www.teachermagazine.com), at a stand at PAX Aus 2022 where ACER was informing 
teachers about the STEM Video Game Challenge, and through researchers’ networks. 

Participants gave active consent to have their responses included in the research project at the 
start of the survey after reading a statement about the project and clicking next to continue onto 
the survey questions. Table 1 details the characteristics of the 129 teacher questionnaire 
respondents. Due to the recruitment method, it is expected that the respondent teachers will be 
more likely to be engaged with digital technology in their schools which may create bias in 
responses. However, as responses were gathered from all States and Territories, across the three 
school sectors and from all school types, all these groups have representation. It should be noted 
that two-thirds of the respondents teach digital technology and therefore the respondent group 
will be biased towards digital technology teachers’ perspectives. 

Table 1 Characteristics of teacher questionnaire respondents 

CHARACTERISTIC 

 

NUMBER OF 
RESPONDENTS 

PERCENTAGE OF 
RESPONDENTS 

State or 
Territory 

ACT 

5 

4% 

NSW 

29 

23% 

NT 

1 

1% 

QLD 

19 

15% 

SA 

8 

6% 

TAS 

3 

2% 

VIC 

42 

33% 

WA 

22 

17% 

School sector 

Catholic 

29 

23% 

Government 

64 

50% 

Independent 

36 

28% 




School type 

Combined 

45 

35% 

Primary 

26 

20% 

Secondary 

57 

44% 

Special 

1 

1% 

Role of 
respondent* 

Principal or Acting Principal 

6 

5% 

Member of the leadership 
team 

33 

26% 

Member of the teaching 
team 

94 

75% 

Member of the 
administrative/ICT team 

4 

3% 

Year levels 
taught* 

Reception/Prep/Kindergarten 

11 

9% 

Year 1 

16 

12% 

Year 2 

17 

13% 

Year 3 

15 

12% 

Year 4 

20 

16% 

Year 5 

21 

16% 

Year 6 

25 

19% 

Year 7 

50 

39% 

Year 8 

54 

42% 

Year 9 

59 

46% 

Year 10 

51 

40% 

Year 11 

50 

39% 

Year 12 

43 

33% 

None – I have no teaching 
responsibilities 

11 

9% 

Do you teach 
digital 
technology? 

Yes 

85 

66% 

No 

44 

34% 

Gender 

Female 

63 

49% 

Male 

33 

26% 

Other or prefer not to 
answer 

2 

2% 

Unknown 

31 

24% 

Total respondents 

129 

100% 



*Percentages will not sum to 100 as multiple responses could be given. 

 

 


A different approach was used to gain an understanding of students’ perspective in the research 
project. Recruitment was via ACER staff networks as a convenience sample. Year 9 students were 
invited to participate in one of four student workshops held at the ACER Adelaide office during 
the school holidays. Each workshop took about 30-45 minutes and asked students about their 
attitudes towards science, mathematics, engineering, and digital technology, whether they think 
females and males view subjects differently, and who influences their attitudes. Table 2 describes 
the characteristics of the students from the four workshops held from the 23rd to 27th January 
2023. Note that one student that participated was in Year 8. 

Table 2 Characteristics of student forum participants 

CHARACTERISTIC 

 

NUMBER OF 
PARTICIPANTS 

School type 

Government Secondary ICSEA* 1000-1100 

5 

Non-government Combined ICSEA Over 
1100 

2 

Non-government Combined ICSEA Over 
1100 

4 

Government Secondary ICSEA 1000-1100 

3 

Gender 

Female 

12 

Male 

1 

Other (Non-binary) 

1 

Year level 

Year 8 

1 

Year 9 

13 

Do you study digital 
technology? 

Yes 

4 

No 

5 

Don’t know 

5 

Total participants 

14 



*ICSEA is the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (average=1000). 

The findings from the teacher survey and student workshops are discussed in the next section. 
Basic descriptive data is also reported in the Appendix. 

It should be noted that when student and teacher responses are compared percentages are used 
to allow for this comparison. As there are only 14 students, and some subsets of teachers are 
small, then percentages are only appropriate when making comparisons. 

 

2.2 Findings from the teacher survey and student workshops 

2.2.1 CSIRO program awareness 

The 129 respondents to the teacher questionnaire were asked about their awareness of CSIRO 
programs or activities related to digital technology. Most of the respondents (75%) had not 
participated in any of CyberTaipan, FarmBeats or Bebras. Six respondents had participated in 
CyberTaipan and 29 respondents had participated in Bebras. None had participated in FarmBeats. 


Respondents who had participated in either CyberTaipan orBebras were asked if participation 
had a positive impact on their practice. As shown in Figure 1 over half the respondents felt that 
both programs had no or low impact on their professional practice. Notethat it is not possible todetermine from these data why these respondents felt the program had little or no impact on 
their practice (e.g. was this becausethey were already highly confident in their abilityto teach 
digital technology before theyengaged with the program?).

Figure 2.1Perceivedpracticeimpactof CSIROprograms(Bebras N=29, CyberTaipanN=6)

Practice impact of CSIROprograms

Bebras

CyberTaipan

0%20%40%60%80%100%


No impact

Low impact

Moderate impact

High impact

Respondents who had participated in one or both of CyberTaipan and Bebras (32 teachers) wereasked if participation had any impact on their professional identity and confidence in theirpractice. Figure 2 shows that over half the respondents (69%) felt that the programs had the most 
impact in their confidence to createopportunities for all students to experience productivestruggle. Over half the respondents(53%) also felt that theprograms had moderate to high 
impact on their confidence to ensure students think critically and talk about what and how theyare learning.

Engaging Young Female Studentsin Digital Technology Programs|11


Figure 2.2Perceivedimpact ofCSIROprogramsonprofessional identity andconfidence (N=32)

Impact onprofessionalidentityandconfidence to:

Create opportunitiesfor all studentstoexperienceproductive struggle

Ensure studentsthink criticallyand talk aboutwhat and howtheyarelearning

Engage all students

Effectively include studentsin my classes,whatever theirneeds, strengthsand identities

0%20%40%60%80%100%


No impact

Low impact

Moderate impact

High impact

The same group of respondents were asked which CSIRO resources theyhad used as part of theirparticipation in CyberTaipan or Bebras. Table 3 shows that the most used resources are theBebras teacher resource sheets and solutions guide alongwith website resources.

Table 3Digitaltechnologyresources (N=32)

DIGITALTECHNOLOGY RESOURCESNUMBER OFRESPONDENTSPERCENTAGE OFRESPONDENTSTeacher resource sheets(Bebras)15 52%
Website resources14 48%
Solutions guides (Bebras)14 48%
Printable cards for classroomactivities (Bebras)10 35%
Teacherprofessional learning resources8 28%
Student worksheetsor workbooks (Bebras)7 24%
Program information webinars5 17%
Practice round (CyberTaipan)4 14%
Other1 3%
Mentor’s support (CyberTaipan)0 0%
None ofthese resources9 28%

*Percentages will not sumto 100 asmultipleresponses could begiven.

12|CSIROAustralia’sNational ScienceAgency


2.2.2Digitaltechnologyinyourschool
Digital technology teacher perceptions

Of the participants that responded to the teacher survey, 66% taught digitaltechnology subjects.
The majority of these teachers agreed or strongly agreed (59%) that they received access toongoing, day-to-day digital technology support.Teachers from secondary schools were the largest 
percentageof respondents that agreed or strongly agreed they had day-to-day support (64%)
compared to teachersworking at combined (57%) and primary schools (52%).

Sixty-two per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the support theyreceived in 
digital technologies was easily transferrable to their work as a leader of learning. Eighty-four percent of respondents also felt supported and encouraged toexperiment with new ideas in theteaching of digital technologies.

Student perceptions

Of the students that participated in the workshops, four studied digital technology subjects with 
10 saying either they did not or did not know if they studied digital technology. Themajority of 
students agreed or strongly agreed (12) that they do well inscience, that they arecurious about 
science (10) and that they like science (9). Students shared mixed views about digital technologywith 5 of 9 students responding agreeing they do well in the subject and seven disagreeing that 
they like digital technology. Students were morelikely to disagree or strongly disagree that theylike mathematics (8) or are curious about mathematics or digital technology (8 each). Figure 3illustrates the responses.

Figure 2.3Studentattitudes to STEM and digitaltechnologyatschool(N=14)

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

I likemathematicsI amcuriousaboutDigitalTechnologyI amcuriousaboutmathematicsI like Digital TechnologyI do well in Digital TechnologyI do wellin mathematicsI likescienceI amcuriousaboutscienceI do well in science

1001000011455478871198656555111200111
2.2.3Confidence
In part one of this research project, confidencewas emphasised as an important theme in theresearch literature, in programs for engaging females in digital technology and in policy. Higher 

Engaging Young Female Studentsin Digital Technology Programs|13


levels of confidence, whether that be for students or teachers of digital technology, were 
repeatedly linked to greater engagement and learning outcomes. This section of the report 
explores both student and teacher perceptions around confidence that were collected in part two 
of the project and how some of these responses compared to other subject areas. 

Teacher perceptions 

Teachers were asked to rate their level of confidence in teaching digital technology. Thirty- eight 
per cent of respondents rated themselves as very confident and 38% rated themselves as 
somewhat confident. Smaller percentages of teachers reported themselves as only slightly 
confident (15%) and not confident in teaching digital technologies related subjects (10%). 

Figure 4 presents the teaching confidence data but differentiates the responses of teachers that 
teach digital technology and those that do not. Of those that teach digital technology, 47% of 
respondents rated themselves as very confident in teaching digital technology compared to 5% of 
respondents that do not teach digital technologies. 

Figure 4 also shows responses for digital technology teachers versus non-digital technology 
teachers when asked to rate their confidence in connecting digital technology to relevant, real- 
world applications. A higher percentage of teachers that teach digital technology subjects are very 
confident (39%) in connecting digital technology to relevant, real-world applications and career 
examples compared to 14% of teachers that do not teach digital technology. 

 

Figure 2.4 Perceived confidence in teaching digital technology by teacher type (N=129) 

 


 

 

Figure 2.4 presents the teaching confidence data for teachers of digital technology but 
differentiates the responses of teachers that teach in secondary, primary and combined schools. 
Seventy percent of primary teachers that teach digital technologies rated themselves as 
somewhat confident or very confident, compared to 78% of secondary teachers and 80% of 
teachers working at combined schools. Conversely, there are a higher percentage of primary 
digital technology teachers who rate themselves as not confident (10%), compared to very few 
(3%) combined digital technology teachers and no secondary digital technology teachers. 
Similarly, a higher percentage of primary digital technology teachers rate themselves as not 

P439#yIS1

confident in connecting digital technology to real-world applications (10%), compared to very few 
(7%) combined digital technology teachers and no secondary digital technology teachers. 

Figure 2.5 Perceived confidence in teaching digital technology for digital technology teachers by school type (N=85) 

 

The survey also provided respondents an opportunity to provide open-text responses to elaborate 
on key themes. One teacher reported that they believed a lack of teacher confidence, a lack of 
relating applications and potential careers to digital technology, peer influence and stigma around 
the subject could be a factor in students’ attitudes towards digital technology subjects: 

“Disappointing number of girls interested in digital tech in middle/senior school largely 
because of peer influences - seen as "uncool" and a "boys subject". Lack of understanding 
amongst teachers, myself included, about application and potential careers with digital tech. 
Lack of confidence amongst staff to teach the subject - so not taught at all or poorly taught.” 

Another teacher also highlighted the importance of relating digital technologies to real world applications, 
to impact students’ attitudes towards digital technologies subjects: 

“Relevance by connecting it to real word issues in their circle/community. When it is 
relatable, students have increased confidence in understanding the skills and outcomes. I 
have enjoyed teaching using project based learning in a student-centred approach to a local 
issue of erosion. Students engaged with their local council and presented their solutions to 
the local concern of erosion and inundation using a minimum of three forms of digital 
technology to communicate their suggested solutions - including a rebuild of the community 
coastline on Minecraft with embedded signage with costings and avatars to lead the 
audience through their proposals.” 

Teacher and student perceptions 

The teacher survey also asked respondents to rate females’ and males’ levels of confidence in 
particular subjects1 . Subjects included engineering, technology, mathematics, science, social 
science and art, and teachers were asked to select one of three categories for each subject: boys 
are more confident, boys and girls are equally confident, and girls are more confident. Students 
were also asked to provide their perspective on subjects using a similar categorical scale of 
response in the student forums. Figure 6 compares teacher ratings with student ratings (note that 

P443#yIS1



science was split into separate subjects for student ratings and physics is used for comparison 
purposes). See the Appendix for other student ratings of individual science subjects.

Figure 2.6Perceived confidenceofstudents in learning differentsubjects(Teachers N=129, StudentsN=14)

Boys more confident

Boys and girls are equally confident

Girls are more confidentTeachersStudents

P451#yIS2
838541464211471147712171297921

0%20%40%60%80%100%0%20%40%60%80%100%

*Note ‘science’isphysicsforstudent ratings.

Most teachers rated boys as more confident in engineering (71%) and technology (61%). In 
contrast, most teachers also rated girls as moreconfident inarts subjects (59%) and social science(50%;notethat49%ofteachersalsoratedboysand girlsasequallyconfident insocial science).
Students rated boys as more confident in engineering (79%) and technology (71%) and rated girlsas moreconfident in arts subjects(54%). Sixty-four per cent of teachersrated girls and boys asequally confidentin science and fifty-seven percent rated boys and girls as equallyconfident inmathematics(however,42%ofteachersalsoratedboysasmoreconfident inmathematics).
Studentsratedboysandgirlsasequallyconfident inscienceand 

mathematics (71% each), with only 7% rating boys as more confident in mathematics.Twenty-
one percent of students rated girls as more confident in mathematics.

When teachers’ responses were differentiated according toschool type, a higher percentage of 
secondary teachers (83%) perceived boys as moreconfident than girlsin engineering than primaryteachers (71%) (see Figure 7). Similarly, a higher percentageofsecondary teachers (71%) 
perceived boys as being moreconfident than girls at technology than primary teachers (48%) (and 
57% of combined school teachers).

1Itemsinthequestionnairewhere‘boys’arelistedbefore‘girls’arebasedontesteditemsusedinother

studies.
16|CSIROAustralia’sNational ScienceAgency


Figure 2.7Perceivedconfidence ofstudentsin learningdifferent subjectsbyschool type(N=129)

P465#yIS2
5149P465#yIS4
53316184160574357385

0%50%100%0%50%100%0%50%100%

The percentage of teachers that perceived girlsas moreconfident than boys in technology, 
mathematics,science,socialscienceand artwashigherforsecondaryteachersthan primaryteachers. For example, none of the primary teachers surveyed rated girls as being moreconfidentthan boysattechnology,mathematicsorscience,however, twopercentofsecondary teachersratedgirls asmore confident thanboys at technology andmathematics, and10% of secondaryteachers rated girls as moreconfident than boys at science(seeFigure 7).

When comparing the ratings of teachers at primary, secondary and combined schools in relationtosubjectsatwhich boysand girlswereperceivedasbeingequallyconfident, ahigher percentage 
of primary and combined school teachers rated equal confidence for all the subjects representedin Figure 7 (engineering, technology, mathematics, science,social science, arts) than secondaryteachers.

Teacher and student perceptions

Open-textresponsesindicatedthatsometeachersdid not equateconfidencewith ability.

“Alotofthisisspeculativefrommyperspectiveasadigitaltechnologiesteacher.Alargeamount of the confidence I've observed in the Technology space often feels misplaced, 
where confidence is not backed up by ability.”
Similarly, one teacher felt that this perceived confidence was a gendered issue instilled bysociety.

“Girlsaretrained fromaveryearlyagetodisparagetheirownabilitiesand celebratethesuccess of others. Boysare encouraged to takepride in their abilities and bluff over-
confidence.My female students have amazing abilities but low confidence”
Engaging Young Female Studentsin Digital Technology Programs|17


Two teachers also noted the stark difference in the confidence of female students between 
primary and secondary years. 

“I am a primary school teacher, and I have actually found that the confidence levels in most 
subjects are very similar. However I am a STEM teacher, and the girls I have are very 
confident in science, technology. In addition, they are also very engaged.” 

and 

“I teach young children and their motivation to learn subjects and content is not influenced 
by their gender yet. The influence is on their own perspective. I understand this changes as 
they get older and the external influences take effect. Younger classes do not have the same 
access to resources as older classes and this is a shame as the younger students are more 
receptive to learning STEM and are less influenced by opinions. They are yet to form many 
opinions about themselves and are less afraid of taking risks with their learning.” 

Students also noted that confidence plays a part in female students’ subject selection choices. 
They suggested that if a female student hasn’t had prior experience of a subject, they won’t 
consider choosing this subject as they don’t have the confidence to step into uncertainty. 

“Females do not like getting into areas that they have not had exposure to from early 
on…avoiding the uncertainty.” 

 

2.2.4 Barriers 

In Part One of this research project, enablers such as parent’s influence and early exposure to 
digital technology were emphasised as important factors that impact on participation and 
engagement with digital technologies. Barriers such as gender stereotypes were also found to 
play a significant role in discouraging females from taking part in digital technology programs. This 
section of the report explores data collected that highlights student and teacher perceptions on 
barriers to females’ engagement in digital technology studies. 

Teacher perceptions 

Teachers were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement ‘There is too much 
emphasis on getting girls into Digital Technology’. Twenty-five per cent of respondents strongly 
disagreed with the statement and 49% disagreed. Teachers were also asked to rate their level of 
agreement with the statement ‘Interest in Digital Technology is cultivated from a young age’. 
Twenty-nine per cent of respondents strongly agreed with the statement and 41% agreed. 

Figure 8 illustrates these data along with results when the same statements were presented to 
teachers in relation to STEM. The distribution of agree/disagree responses for digital technology 
and for STEM were similar. 


Figure 2.8 Agreement levels for teachers regarding digital technology and STEM emphasis and cultivation (N=129) 

 

Teacher and student perceptions 

Teachers and students were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statements ‘The 
media portrays more men as Digital Technology role models’ and ‘The portrayal of Digital 
Technology is very stereotypical (e.g. IT nerds)’. Twenty-six per cent of teachers strongly. 

agreed with both statements compared to 14% and 21% of students, respectively. No students 
disagreed with the statements ‘The portrayal of digital technology is very stereotypical’. 

Figure 9 shows the distribution of responses from teachers and students for these statements. 

 

Figure 2.9 Agreement levels regarding digital technology stereotypes and careers (Teachers N=129, Students N=14) 

 

Teachers and students were also asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement ‘Boys 
and girls have the same career opportunities in Digital Technology-related sectors’ 2 . Only 8% of 

P488#yIS1
P495#yIS1

teachers strongly agreed with the statement and 31% agreed. Larger percentages of teachers 
disagreed or strongly disagreed (45%) with the statement. Comparatively, 64% of students 
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. 

No respondents strongly agreed that boys are more suited than girls to Digital Technology- 
related careers and only 5% of teachers agreed with the statement. However, 50% of students 
participating in the workshops agreed that boys are more suited than girls to Digital Technology-
related careers. These responses are also shown in Figure 9. 

The teacher survey and student workshops also provided respondents an opportunity to provide 
elaborations on the findings highlighted above. One teacher reported that: 

“I think media imagery of girls and women involved in STEM and digital technology is an 
ongoing important reinforcing imperative. A clear career pathway to university and work is 
also important to emphasise.” 

This was emphasised in other teachers’ responses with one teacher suggesting that interventions 
targeted at primary students might prevent stereotypes from forming: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Items in the questionnaire where ‘boys’ are listed before ‘girls’ are based on tested items used in other 

studies. 

P503#y1

“From what I observe, students tend to 'lump together' Digital Technology, STEM, 
Mathematics and Science subjects with each other as well as with a perceived notion of 
"smart" or "more academic". This seems to have a negative effect on student's willingness to 
engage or pursue these subjects. One possibility is that access to positive, creative, open- 
ended problem-based projects at an early age (i.e. primary) might help remove this stigma.” 

Another teacher commented on the lack of standalone IT classes along with the lack of female 
teachers of Digital Technology as barriers to engaging young women in Digital Technologies: 

“The attempt years ago to integrate Information Technology into all subjects led to the loss of 
IT classes. It was never well integrated, primarily due to the low skill level of teachers in other 
discipline areas. Unfortunately, once the IT classes were gone, room was no longer seen to be 
available to accommodate the Digital Technology curriculum through standalone subjects. At 
best, they were offered as elective subjects. The shortage of female teacher role models in 
Digital Technology has a big influence on female students' willingness to give elective Digital 
Technology subjects a try”. 

Students gave clear thoughts around media stereotypes: 

“Media – in movies a lot more females in English, Humanities career roles, if a female 
character is a mathematician often a make-over is needed to make them ‘likeable’ – so it is 
like the outlook or appearance is more important”. 

and 

“Social media – making female empowerment seem a massive task – not normalising it, 
portrayal of “nerdiness” for people interested in STEM, or even interested in school-work – 
‘girl who likes maths’”. 

and 

“Females are stereotyped as not needing much in terms of having a career that is satisfying 
for them, like being a waitress is enough when in their head it might not be”. 

and 

“Media … enables a toxic masculinity to boys – makes boys think they should be doing 
building/hard jobs, ‘prove’ they are manly”. 

 

Teachers and students were asked to rate the importance of different influences on students’ 
attitudes towards Digital Technology subjects. Teachers rated peers (75% teachers rated these 
influences as very or moderately important), role models (73%), a students’ mother (73%), and 


teachers (73%) as the most important influences on a students’ attitude towards Digital 
Technology, closely followed by the influence of society (72%) and a students’ father’s influence 
(71%). As shown in Figure 10, students’ responses were slightly different. Students rated their 
parents as being the most important influence on their attitude towards Digital Technology 
subjects (71% rating the influence of their mother or father as very important). Similar to teachers, 
students also rated role models as an important influence on their attitudes with 86% rating this 
influence as very or moderately important. Students also rated in-school influences of teachers 
and career counsellors as important influences (36% of students rated both these influences as 
very important). However, students had mixed views on the influence of peers on their attitudes 
towards Digital Technology subjects with 58% rating peers as very or moderately important and 
43% rating them as low importance or not at all important. 

Figure 2.10 Agreement levels regarding factors that are important in attitudes towards digital technology (Teachers 
N=129, Students N=14) 

 

One of the greatest influences on a students’ attitude towards digital technology was perceived to 
be the students’ interest and passion, which 64% of teachers and 79% of students agreed was very 
important. The ability/skills of the student were also seen to be a very important influence on 
their attitude towards digital technology, with 42% of teachers and 79% of students agreeing this 
was very important. 

Again, teachers and students had the opportunity to construct responses around factors they 
believed were important to students’ attitudes to Digital Technology. One teacher respondent 
stated that gaming and Digital Technology were often conflated and though a student may be 
interested and passionate about gaming this does not necessarily translate to a passion for Digital 
Technology: 

P521#yIS1

“Students often equate digital technology subjects to gaming - they can quickly become 
disillusioned when they find that they need to learn basic problem-solving skills and logical 
thinking to these subjects. Access to good resources is a problem in many schools. Most 
young women don't see themselves as likely to go down a technology/engineering/scientific 
pathway”. 

This perception was also reinforced in one of the student workshop groups where the conflation 
between gaming and Digital Technology was apparent: 

“We (girls) don’t like ‘coding’, however if friends are doing it we would join in as a team thing. 
Girls see digital technology as boring. Girls don’t feel like it comes naturally to them. Yes, 
might get involved if the content was interesting, and the outcome made a difference. If there 
was more real-world context (rather than coding) they can look up on computer (i.e. 
complete research)”. 

One teacher noted the importance of both early exposure and the influence of skilled teachers: 

“Success in early years of education - students need to have highly skilled teachers in primary 
to ensure that they come into senior subjects prepared and engaged. By year 7, the majority 
of students have already decided that digi tech is boring or too hard (and quite often both)”. 

This was also reinforced by another teacher who related this to larger systemic issues in relation to 
staffing around digital technology education in schools. 

“At a systemic level there is a view, supported by the highlighting of NAPLAN, OLNA etc to 
school outcomes and student progress, that there is ‘important’ learning, and everything else. 

At the school level, many teachers have no formal training in Digital Technologies related 
fields (undergraduate, industry experience, or in-depth professional learning), and school 
leaders (principals, deputies) lack understanding of the curriculum and what teaching it 
entails. Combined with Digital Technology being a new compulsory subject, staffing classes 
can be left to whoever is most suited or most available at the expense of quality of learning 
for students. If students don't see their teachers invested in the subject, they are less likely to 
be invested themselves, or not exposed to information that allows them to make more 
informed decisions for themselves. This flows on to information being fed back to parents and 
the community about what students are and should be learning.” 

Students in the workshops emphasised the importance of school influences such as skilled 
teachers, the school environment, and the way school counsellors (and other adults) can push 
female students into ‘female career’ choices. 

“Even if the subject is not something a student is highly interested in, the teacher could be 
the catalyst for getting those students to take it. Same is true for the other way round, 
students lose interest in a subject when the teacher is not well liked.” 


 

“[It’s] determined by how a school portrays a subject. Some schools don’t highlight all 
subjects, some are hidden away. If not a popular subject, it is not obvious, sometimes you 
find out if it is any good by someone else.” 

 

“[There are] stereotypes where people (adults) expect females to choose certain subjects or 
follow certain career paths… School counsellors / advisors / other adults [in schools] 
suggesting career choices that are more for ‘females’… [It’s as if] females are stereotyped as 
not needing much in terms of having a career that is satisfying for them, like being a waitress 
is enough when in their (female’s) head it might not be”. 

 

 


3 Tertiary Perspectives 

3.1 Approach to tertiary interviews 

To ascertain the barriers and enablers that impact female students participating in digital 
technologies programs at the tertiary level, and if these factors were consistent with patterns 
found in other data collected, educators in the tertiary system were interviewed. These interviews 
were conducted online during December 2022. 

The interviews were focused on: 

a. undergraduate attrition and gender disparity, and 
b. barriers to students choosing to embark on tertiary postgraduate pathways. 


Five tertiary educators participated in the interviews. The participants were all tertiary educators 
from three different universities located either in Victoria or Queensland. The participants ranged 
from Master’s students who tutored computer science classes, computer science unit co-
ordinators, and heads of digital technologies research groups involved in teaching and supervision 
of PhD students. An effort was made to recruit female tertiary educators to participate in the 
tertiary interviews, however, the few that were able to be contacted did not respond to the 
request and as such none of the participants identified as female. 

The interviews were semi-structured and each lasted approximately 30 minutes. All participants 
were initially asked six questions, shown in Table 4. These questions formed the structured 
framework of the interview, and participants were then asked to elaborate on aspects of their 
responses. Notes were taken during the interview and read back to participants to verify accuracy. 

Table 4 Questions asked in tertiary interviews 

1 

How would you define Digital Technologies and its importance to education and/or society? 

2 

How would you define your role in digital technologies and/or STEM education? 

3 

What do you perceive as the issues and/or barriers to encouraging students to study digital technology subjects at 
the undergraduate level? 

4 

What do you perceive as the issues and/or barriers to encouraging students to study digital technology at the 
postgraduate level? 

5 

What do you perceive as the main causes of attrition from digital technologies courses at the undergraduate and 
postgraduate level? 

6 

Have you noticed any gender disparity in digital technologies subjects at the undergraduate and/or postgraduate 
level? If so, what are your thoughts on the reasons for these disparities? 



 


Two independent coders conducted thematic content analysis to find overarching themes that 
emerged from the data. The data were interrogated to explore (a) undergraduate attrition and 
gender disparity, and (b) barriers to students choosing to undertake a postgraduate pathway. 
Coders used a key to distinguish subthemes in participants’ responses. 

 

3.2 Findings from tertiary interviews 

Before discussing the overarching themes arising from the tertiary interviews, the contextual 
backdrop of participants’ understanding of digital technologies is provided. Participants viewed 
digital technologies as anything relating to computers and information processing technology, and 
a technology that aides the development of knowledge. 

As one participant stated, 

“Digital technology is almost anything that involves transistors! Any technology where the 
processing goes by 0s and 1s…” 

All participants agreed that digital technologies are important to education. In particular, they 
highlighted the importance of digital technologies to (1) support students and educators to deliver 
and find information and resources (e.g. search engines, learning management systems), and (2) 
facilitate interactions with peers and experts over large distances (e.g. delivering lectures by 
Zoom). They also highlighted that digital technologies can be used by and are useful for everyone. 

Interestingly, two participants linked learning digital technologies to the development of critical 
thinking skills. 

“Foundations of digital technologies and thinking (logic, proof) need to be taught at school. 
Those that miss that teaching at school are at a disadvantage.” 

Four out of five participants commented on a noticeable gender disparity in undergraduate digital 
technology courses. Participants noted that enrolments in dedicated, high-level computer science 
units tended to be 75% male students and 25% female. In some fields, like data science and 
artificial intelligence, participants noted that this ratio continued into postgraduate study. One 
participant noted that only 10% of students enrolled in robotics subjects were female. 

“Attrition is not the problem in terms of gender. The primary problem is encouraging the 
female students to embark on the degree.” 

This quote highlights an important issue noted by 4 out of 5 participants; that is, participants had 
not seen a greater proportion of female students than male students dropping out of tertiary 
digital technologies subjects or related courses but had concerns about the lower proportion of 
female students choosing to enrol in these subjects or courses, and subsequently pursue a career 
in this area. 


3.3 Identifying barriers to digital technologies engagement in 
undergraduate and postgraduate courses 

A thematic content analysis found three overarching themes related to barriers engaging with 
tertiary digital technologies study. The most dominant theme related to representation and 
inclusivity. Other overarching themes were related to prior exposure to digital technologies 
education and related STEM disciplines, and financial barriers. Interview narratives included a 
range of examples, typically stories shared by students or perceptions of what participants saw in 
the tertiary classroom context. 

3.3.1 Representation and inclusivity 

The theme of representation and inclusivity captured a common thread in participant responses 
that females may not be studying digital technologies because of a lack of female representation 
in the area (including the absence of female role models) and the impact of active cultural biases 
and stereotypes that influenced how inclusive the learning environment was for female students. 

Representation 

One of the key factors that participants attributed to females choosing not to enrol in tertiary 
subjects and/or courses in digital technologies was a lack of female representation. Lack of 
representation was discussed as a lack of visible females successfully studying and/or pursuing 
digital technology careers (such as teaching digital technologies at the tertiary level). Four 
participants believed that some female students chose not to take on undergraduate digital 
technologies programs as they didn’t feel represented in IT. 

“There is a picture of a student in their head, perhaps a male as opposed to the spectrum of 
other possibilities. This can lead to situations where they don’t feel their choice is represented 
well.” 

One participant noted a lack of female academics at their university. The lack of female academic 
staff meant there were not many female academics available to supervise PhD students. Two 
participants hypothesised some females might not see themselves as the right person to 
undertake postgraduate digital technologies study due to an absence of female academics/role 
models in the digital technology space. One participant recounted a discussion he had with a 
secondary teacher at an innovation fair: 

“She was dissuaded from doing a PhD as she thought the mentors/academics would all be 
male.” 

One participant felt that if the number of female academics in digital technologies increased, this 
would in turn increase the number of females interested in enrolling in both undergraduate and 
postgraduate degrees. 

 


“Staffing in the academic field is also predominantly men. If about one third were female, this 
may encourage female participation in terms of enrollment, and maybe more females in 
academia” 

Lack of representation was also discussed in relation to peer networks. One participant stated that 
students’ decision to study digital technologies at the tertiary level was heavily influenced by peer 
interests. If friends were not interested in an undergraduate degree in digital technologies, the 
participant believed this would impact on the individual student’s choice to pursue a digital 
technology degree upon secondary graduation. 

Inclusivity 

Smaller numbers of female students choosing to enrol in digital technologies degrees was also 
attributed to a learning culture that is not as inclusive of females, with an emphasis on the impact 
of stereotypes and culture biases. Two participants felt female students were discouraged from 
studying digital technologies at the tertiary level, due to IT and engineering having a reputation of 
being male-dominated subjects. 

“Robotics has the perception of being blokey. The tools and the environment are stereotyped 
that way. Engineers in general still struggle with gender disparity, as many people think of a 
male when they think of an engineer.” 

Three participants felt that one reason students were not pursuing digital technologies at the 
tertiary level was due to avoiding or not being exposed to these subjects during secondary school. 
In particular, one participant noted that technical subjects often come with a ‘nerd’ stigma that 
would be more difficult for female students to cope with. 

“Nerd stigma – a sizable section of the population thinks IT is uncool…Nerd stigma for women 
is often worse than for guys. There is a big challenge of acceptance, creating a culture where 
pursuing technological studies is appropriate for everyone.” 

Four out of five participants acknowledged that there is an unconscious, societal expectation that 
males are more suited to studying engineering and technology subjects than females. 

Participants also reflected on the theme of inclusivity through discussion of the culture of digital 
technology learning in the tertiary context. One participant, who was a tutor of a tertiary digital 
technology course, expressed their view that though they felt their classrooms were inclusive, 
female students did not ask for the same level of support. 

“Class was welcoming to females. Students were treated equally in terms of time from tutors, 
all students were asked how they were going. Guys would say what they were struggling with. 
Girls tended not to be as open, did cover up struggles, so tutors did not know how much help 
they needed.” 


While this participant felt there was an inclusive culture in their classrooms, less help-seeking 
behaviour and openness to showing learning struggles could indicate that the environment was 
less comfortable for female students and/or that gendered ideas about how females “should” 
engage in classroom learning were prevalent. 

Participants also discussed lack of inclusivity and gender bias in terms of the way secondary 
students were recruited into tertiary degrees. Two participants felt that the university marketing 
and open day recruitment materials were not inclusive of all genders. For example, one participant 
stated that: 

“One popular engineering undergrad activity is related to race cars. Car technology is 
presented as car racing to be more engaging to prospective students, but there could be 
other activities that engage females more. The selected activity might not be the most 
engaging for everyone.” 

While another participant noted that activities that some people thought were not typically 
enjoyed by females, e.g. car racing, were actually very popular with female students. 

“The university motorsports team had about 30% female, more than undergrad. So 

societal pressure that girls do not like motorsports, rather than something they don’t 

actually like.” 

One participant also felt the course materials could be gendered, especially in robotics and similar 
engineering courses. For example, 

“Support materials for training are often put together by males e.g. health and safety videos, 
sometimes the resources themselves reflect the stereotype.” 

Discussion with participants highlighted existing conflicts between what academics perceive might 
engage a diverse demographic of students, and what actually engages students. The discussion 
also highlighted that more work needs to be done on ensuring a wide range of open day activities, 
and checks to ensure that materials presented both at open days and in the classroom are 
inclusive of the diverse range of students’ backgrounds and interests. 

 

3.4 Prior exposure 

The second overarching theme illustrated in participants’ responses was the idea that a barrier to 
females choosing undergraduate digital technologies education was lack of exposure to digital 
technologies and specialist mathematics in secondary school. The lack of exposure was seen to be 
due to two factors: lack of facilities and lack of access to teachers of these specialties. As stated by 
one participant, 


“The main barriers we discussed were that people in remote communities don’t have access 
to the same platforms, quality of internet connections and mobile networks. As soon as you 
are away from the coastline the connection is patchy. Though this should not be assumed, as 
some urban areas also have poor connections. Connections can also be a problem for 
metropolitan areas and regional towns.” 

Another participant stated, 

“Mathematics background – it becomes a socio-economic issue about who has access to 
specialist mathematics at high school. Students are starting from a position of disadvantage if 
they haven’t completed specialist mathematics.” 

The high level of mathematical rigour required to successfully complete an undergraduate digital 
technology course was often seen as a barrier to students, both male and female, if they had not 
completed advanced mathematics at secondary school. As one participant stated, 

“The difficulty of the content can be a barrier. Algorithms at the start of the course e.g. 
sorting, searching, optimization, p vs np, invariant analysis. The fundamental building blocks of 
computer science are pure mathematics. It requires rigorous mathematics.” 

One participant noted that tertiary students were often surprised at the high level of mathematics 
needed to successfully complete an undergraduate digital technologies degree and that this 
response would not occur if students were exposed to more digital technology content as part of 
their secondary education. The same participant also highlighted that more digital technology 
subjects offered as university electives could highlight to students the potential of digital 
technology education and encourage more students to embark on double degrees or change 
major. 

Two participants felt that even though digital technologies were being taught at secondary school, 
the way the subject was being taught might not be as engaging for all students, particularly female 
and First Nation students. There was an emphasis on using multiple methods of teaching, rather 
than purely traditional teaching methods, to ensure that the teaching of digital technologies at 
secondary school accounted for cultural differences and/or rural and remote environments. 

One participant highlighted the need for universities to bring back mathematics pre-requisites to 
send a signal to both secondary teachers and students, the pivotal role mathematics plays in 
digital technologies courses at the tertiary level. 

 

3.5 Financial 

The final theme and significant barrier mentioned by four out of five participants, for all genders, 
was financial. Participants highlighted that a major barrier to students undertaking postgraduate 
pathways in digital technologies was the lack of financial incentive. Unlike science disciplines, 
digital technology graduates can earn similar money from completing only the undergraduate 


degree as opposed to obtaining postgraduate qualifications. The opportunities to obtain a job are 
also high after finishing an undergraduate degree. As one participant stated: 

“Workforce opportunities are already high after finishing undergraduate, fewer students do 
postgraduate when the job market is booming.” 

Two participants highlighted that government subsidies to make STEM courses cheaper could 
potentially encourage more enrolments, from all genders. 

 


4 Key findings and strategies for the future 

The research findings in this report highlight the factors associated with young female students’ 
engagement with digital technology and trace this pathway from primary through to tertiary 
education. Across the different data sources collected, including the perspectives of secondary 
students, primary and secondary teachers, and tertiary educators, several key themes emerged. 
These are presented below and then linked to recommendations in the Part One report. 

4.1 Representation and digital technology in schools, tertiary institutions, 
and the media 

The theme of representation was illustrated across the data collected in the project in several 
ways. The importance of female students being exposed to positive, female role models in digital 
technologies was considered vital by all research participants to promoting participation in the 
subject area from the early years into tertiary education. This included role models in media, in 
the classroom and in academia with a lack of female representation identified as a considerable 
barrier to young female students’ choosing to study digital technologies subjects. 

Representation was also highlighted in relation to the way that digital technologies curriculum was 
implemented and taught in secondary education. The majority of students that participated in the 
student forums could not recall or believed they had not studied digital technologies at school. 
This suggests that the content had either not been covered yet in their pre-Year 8/9 education or 
that they did not remember the content that had been taught to them. Open-text responses from 
teachers also reinforced the variability of curriculum implementation across schools. Ways put 
forward to improve the representation of digital technologies curriculum in schools included 
elevating its status in secondary education (e.g., as a stand-alone subject that students must 
complete), and ensuring that it is taught by confident teachers, and discussed and understood by 
school leadership and career counsellors as a valuable area to pursue professionally. 

Lastly, the important impact of mothers and fathers on students’ attitudes towards digital 
technology was reported by both teachers and students. Thus, and recognised in the Part One 
report, the way that digital technologies are represented/discussed and accessed in the home is 
crucial in shaping young people’s engagement and participation with the area. 

4.2 Inclusivity and the culture of learning in digital technologies 
education 

Active cultural biases and stereotypes around females and digital technologies (e.g. girls and 
gaming/female tertiary students and robotics) and their negative impact on female students’ 
engagement with the subject area were emphasised in data collected from students and 
educators at all levels. This was illustrated by student voices that endorsed some of these 
stereotypes, by teachers’ perceptions of gendered confidence patterns in technology and 
engineering (i.e. a high percentage of teachers, particularly secondary educators, reported male 


students were more confident in these subject areas than female students), in suggestions that 
the reputation of digital technologies in tertiary education is male-centric, and in the recruitment 
strategies utilised by some tertiary institutions. 

Interestingly, teachers’ responses highlighted that negative stereotypes, biases and stigma may 
not be as prevalent or as impactful on female students’ engagement in the primary years. The 
importance of creating inclusive digital technologies curriculum in primary education that includes 
real-world contexts was emphasised as a way to promote better student engagement with the 
subject area in general. However, inclusive curriculum in secondary and tertiary education would 
also address concerns/issues raised by secondary and tertiary educators about curriculum barriers 
to female students’ engagement. 

Actively working to recognise and dismantle negative stereotypes around girls and gaming etc… 
were also highlighted and is important for all levels of education. Working with peer groups in 
secondary school could be beneficial given the large influence that peers were reported to have 
on students’ attitudes. Reducing stigma and gender stereotypes around females and STEM in 
general would also be useful in helping to increase young female students’ engagement with 
mathematics, which was highlighted as an important enabler for tertiary study in digital 
technologies. 

4.3 Supporting teachers running CEdO programs 

Only a small number of respondents to the teacher survey had participated in CEdO programs. 
However, 28% of these teachers had not accessed any of the resources available to them during 
their participation in the programs. Around 40% to 50% of teachers had used teacher resource 
sheets (for Bebras), website resources and/or solutions guides (for Bebras). While these results are 
only for a small sample of teachers involved with the programs, they may indicate there is an 
opportunity to develop new resources or new methods to engage teachers with the program 
resources available. 

4.4 Connecting research findings with Part One recommendations 

Table 5 builds on the findings and recommendations of the Part One report to link these with the 
dominant themes from the primary research findings discussed in this report. 

Table 5 Summary of recommendations from Part One of the project linked to Part Two findings 

CATEGORY 

PART ONE RECOMMENDATION 

LINKS TO PART TWO RESEARCH FINDINGS 

Recommendations that 
can be acted on now 

Expanding the locations where CEdO 
programs are advertised and promoted (e.g 
with DATTA Vic, DATTA Queensland, QSITE 
and ICTENSW) 

NA 




Mothers and fathers were rated as key 
influencers that shape students’ attitudes 
towards digital technologies. 

Engaging parents through participation (e.g. 
as Bebras Coordinators) and by linking to 
cybersafety resources (see resources 
developed by the e-safety Commissioner: 

https://www.esafety.gov.au/kids) 

Developing brief information sheets for 
teachers about the impact of parental 
cybersafety concerns on digital technology 
access and participation 

As above. Parents may be more comfortable 
to engage in positive discussions about 
digital technologies pathways for their 
daughters when given resources to address 
cybersafety concerns. They could also be key 
advocates for change and help dismantle 
negative stereotypes. 

Developing brief information sheets for 
teachers to better engage female students 

Inclusive curriculum that better engages all 
students using real- world contexts was 
highlighted as an important factor for 
promoting student engagement. 

Developing brief information sheets for 
teachers to address stereotypes and stigma 

Active cultural biases and stereotypes were 
identified, particularly in the secondary and 
tertiary space, as barriers to female students’ 
engagement with digital technologies. 

Recommendations for 
the short-term 

Curriculum mapping programs to the 
content descriptions of the Key Learning 
Areas and continua of the General 
Capabilities of the Australian Curriculum 

This recommendation may better support 
teachers that engage (or are considering 
engaging) in CEdO programs. 

Enhancing the role of mentors and 
expanding mentor recruitment strategies 
(e.g. considering remote mentorship 
options, recruiting through the STEM 
Professionals in Schools program with 
organisations such as Data61, and inviting 
university students completing digital 
technology programs to be mentors) 

Role models were highlighted as an 
important influence on students’ attitudes 
towards digital technologies. 

Expanding the representation of young 
female students and students from diverse 
backgrounds in visual imagery associated 
with CEdO programs (e.g. in newsletters, 
on social media platforms and in 
publications like the annual report) 

Lack of female representation was 
emphasised as a barrier to female students’ 
engagement with digital technologies. 

Reviewing task content, where possible 
(e.g. within the constraints of each 
program, examining ways that task content 
could be modified to be more inclusive) 

Inclusive curriculum that better engages all 
students using real- world contexts was 
highlighted as an important factor for 
promoting student engagement. 

Investigating current gender stereotypes 
and stigma around females and digital 
technology in Australian early adolescent 
peer culture to enhance and refine 
resources developed to dismantle these 
negative attitudes 

As above. Research findings reinforce the 
need to address negative stereotypes, stigma 
and cultural biases at all levels of education. 

Partnering with First Nation businesses and 
communities (e.g. the Indigenous Digital 
Excellence (IDX) Initiative, InDigiMOB, 
Willyama and Baidam) 

As above. Representation and the 
importance of role models was highlighted in 
the research findings. 




Building new supporting resources for 
Bebras that are more inclusive for all 
students, are aligned to the Australian 
Curriculum, build student confidence and 
engagement, and scaffold students into 
participating in the Bebras competition 
rounds 

Long-term 
recommendation 

Inclusive curriculum that begins in the 
primary years and better engages all 
students using real- world contexts was 
emphasised as way to address negative 
stereotypes, stigma and cultural biases and 
increase female students’ engagement and 
participation in digital technologies. 



 

 


CUMULATIVE PERCENT 



PERCENT 



 Teacher Survey Frequencies 

A.1 In which State or Territory is your school located? 

FREQUENCY 

VALID PERCENT 

Valid 

ACT 

5 

3.9 

3.9 

3.9 

NSW 

29 

22.5 

22.5 

26.4 

NT 

1 

.8 

.8 

27.1 

QLD 

19 

14.7 

14.7 

41.9 

SA 

8 

6.2 

6.2 

48.1 

TAS 

3 

2.3 

2.3 

50.4 

VIC 

42 

32.6 

32.6 

82.9 

WA 

22 

17.1 

17.1 

100.0 

Total 

129 

100.0 

100.0 

 



A.2 In which sector is your school? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Catholic 

29 

22.5 

22.5 

22.5 

Government 

64 

49.6 

49.6 

72.1 

Independent 

36 

27.9 

27.9 

100.0 

Total 

129 

100.0 

100.0 

 



A.3 What type of school is it? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Combined 

45 

34.9 

34.9 

34.9 

Primary 

26 

20.2 

20.2 

55.0 

Secondary 

57 

44.2 

44.2 

99.2 

Special 

1 

.8 

.8 

100.0 

Total 

129 

100.0 

100.0 

 



 

A.4 Who is answering this survey? (Please select all that apply) 

A.4.1 Cases 

VALID 

MISSING 

TOTAL 




PERCENT 



N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

rolea 

126 

97.7% 

3 

2.3% 

129 

100.0% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 

RESPONSES 

 

 

N 

PERCENT 

PERCENT OF CASES 

Who is answering this survey? a 

Principal or Acting Principal 

6 

4.4% 

4.8% 

Member of the leadership team 

33 

24.1% 

26.2% 

Member of the teaching team 

94 

68.6% 

74.6% 

Member of the 
administration/ICT team 

4 

2.9% 

3.2% 

Total 

137 

100.0% 

108.7% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

A.5 What year levels are you teaching this year? (Please select all 
that apply) 

A.5.1 Cases 

VALID 

MISSING 

TOTAL 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

yearsa 

129 

100.0% 

0 

0.0% 

129 

100.0% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 

RESPONSES 

 

 

N 

PERCENT 

PERCENT OF CASES 

What year levels are you teaching 
this year?a 

Reception/Prep/Kindergarten 

11 

2.5% 

8.5% 

Year 1 

16 

3.6% 

12.4% 

Year 2 

17 

3.8% 

13.2% 

Year 3 

15 

3.4% 

11.6% 

Year 4 

20 

4.5% 

15.5% 

Year 5 

21 

4.7% 

16.3% 

Year 6 

25 

5.6% 

19.4% 

Year 7 

50 

11.3% 

38.8% 

Year 8 

54 

12.2% 

41.9% 

Year 9 

59 

13.3% 

45.7% 

Year 10 

51 

11.5% 

39.5% 

Year 11 

50 

11.3% 

38.8% 

Year 12 

43 

9.7% 

33.3% 

None - I have no teaching 
responsibilities 

11 

2.5% 

8.5% 

Total 

443 

100.0% 

343.4% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 


A.6 Do you teach digital technology? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Yes 

85 

65.9 

65.9 

65.9 

No 

44 

34.1 

34.1 

100.0 

Total 

129 

100.0 

100.0 

 



 


 CSIRO program awareness 

B.1 Which of the following CSIRO programs/activities related to 
Digital Technology have you participated in? (Please select all 
that apply) 

B.1.1 Case Summary 

VALID 

MISSING 

TOTAL 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

q1a 

129 

100.0% 

0 

0.0% 

129 

100.0% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 

RESPONSES 

 

 

N 

PERCENT 

PERCENT OF CASES 

Which of the following CSIRO programs have you 
participated in?a 

CyberTaipan 

6 

4.5% 

4.7% 

Bebras 

29 

22.0% 

22.5% 

None of these 

97 

73.5% 

75.2% 

Total 

132 

100.0% 

102.3% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

B.2 To what extent did these Digital Technology programs/activities 
have a positive impact on your practice? 

B.2.1 CyberTaipan 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

No impact 

2 

33.3 

40.0 

40.0 

Low impact 

1 

16.7 

20.0 

60.0 

High impact 

2 

33.3 

40.0 

100.0 

Total 

5 

83.3 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

1 

16.7 

 

 

Total 

6 

100.0 

 

 



B.2.2 Bebras 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

No impact 

2 

6.9 

7.1 

7.1 

Low impact 

13 

44.8 

46.4 

53.6 

Moderate impact 

12 

41.4 

42.9 

96.4 




High impact 

1 

3.4 

3.6 

100.0 

Total 

28 

96.6 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

1 

3.4 

 

 

Total 

29 

100.0 

 

 



 

B.3 What impact has participating in CSIRO programs/activities had 
on your professional identity and confidence to? 

B.3.1 Engage all students 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

No impact 

5 

15.6 

16.1 

16.1 

Low impact 

10 

31.3 

32.3 

48.4 

Moderate impact 

14 

43.8 

45.2 

93.5 

High impact 

2 

6.3 

6.5 

100.0 

Total 

31 

96.9 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

1 

3.1 

 

 

Total 

32 

100.0 

 

 



B.3.2 Ensure students think critically and talk about what and how they are learning 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

No impact 

2 

6.3 

6.7 

6.7 

Low impact 

12 

37.5 

40.0 

46.7 

Moderate impact 

13 

40.6 

43.3 

90.0 

High impact 

3 

9.4 

10.0 

100.0 

Total 

30 

93.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

2 

6.3 

 

 

Total 

32 

100.0 

 

 



B.3.3 Effectively include students in my classes, whatever their needs, strengths and 
identities 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

No impact 

3 

9.4 

10.0 

10.0 

Low impact 

13 

40.6 

43.3 

53.3 

Moderate impact 

12 

37.5 

40.0 

93.3 

High impact 

2 

6.3 

6.7 

100.0 

Total 

30 

93.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

2 

6.3 

 

 




Total 

32 

100.0 

 

 



B.3.4 Create opportunities for all students to experience productive struggle 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

No impact 

2 

6.3 

6.9 

6.9 

Low impact 

7 

21.9 

24.1 

31.0 

Moderate impact 

16 

50.0 

55.2 

86.2 

High impact 

4 

12.5 

13.8 

100.0 

Total 

29 

90.6 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

3 

9.4 

 

 

Total 

32 

100.0 

 

 



 

B.4 Which CSIRO resources have you used as part of your 
participation in CSIRO programs/activities? (Please select all that apply) 

B.4.1 Case Summary 

VALID 

MISSING 

TOTAL 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

q4a 

29 

90.6% 

3 

9.4% 

32 

100.0% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 

RESPONSES 

 

 

N 

PERCENT 

PERCENT OF 
CASES 

Which CSIRO resources have you used as 
part of your participation?a 

Teacher professional learning sessions 

8 

9.5% 

27.6% 

Program information webinars 

5 

6.0% 

17.2% 

Website resources 

14 

16.7% 

48.3% 

Solutions guides (Bebras) 

14 

16.7% 

48.3% 

Teacher resource sheets (Bebras) 

15 

17.9% 

51.7% 

Printable cards for classroom activities 
(Bebras) 

10 

11.9% 

34.5% 

Student worksheets or workbooks (Bebras) 

7 

8.3% 

24.1% 

Practice round (CyberTaipan) 

4 

4.8% 

13.8% 

Other 

1 

1.2% 

3.4% 

None 

6 

7.1% 

20.7% 

Total 

84 

100.0% 

289.7% 



. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 


 Digital Technology in your school 

C.1 How much do you agree or disagree with the following 
statements regarding support for Digital Technology? 

C.1.1 Teachers have ready access to ongoing day-to-day support in my school 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

13 

10.1 

10.7 

10.7 

Disagree 

37 

28.7 

30.6 

41.3 

Agree 

50 

38.8 

41.3 

82.6 

Strongly agree 

21 

16.3 

17.4 

100.0 

Total 

121 

93.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

8 

6.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



C.1.2 If needed, support is readily available to me from external agencies such as 
CSIRO 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

13 

10.1 

11.0 

11.0 

Disagree 

48 

37.2 

40.7 

51.7 

Agree 

52 

40.3 

44.1 

95.8 

Strongly agree 

5 

3.9 

4.2 

100.0 

Total 

118 

91.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

11 

8.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



C.1.3 The support I receive is easily transferable to my work as a leader of learning 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

9 

7.0 

8.0 

8.0 

Disagree 

34 

26.4 

30.4 

38.4 

Agree 

58 

45.0 

51.8 

90.2 

Strongly agree 

11 

8.5 

9.8 

100.0 

Total 

112 

86.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

17 

13.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 




C.1.4 Experimentation with new ideas is encouraged and supported in my school 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

5 

3.9 

4.3 

4.3 

Disagree 

13 

10.1 

11.3 

15.7 

Agree 

73 

56.6 

63.5 

79.1 

Strongly agree 

24 

18.6 

20.9 

100.0 

Total 

115 

89.1 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

14 

10.9 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



C.1.5 Our school leaders are active participants in our Digital Technology 
programs/activities 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

17 

13.2 

14.9 

14.9 

Disagree 

51 

39.5 

44.7 

59.6 

Agree 

37 

28.7 

32.5 

92.1 

Strongly agree 

9 

7.0 

7.9 

100.0 

Total 

114 

88.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

15 

11.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



C.1.6 How confident are you in teaching Digital Technology-related subjects? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Very confident 

42 

32.6 

37.5 

37.5 

Somewhat confident 

42 

32.6 

37.5 

75.0 

Slightly confident 

17 

13.2 

15.2 

90.2 

Not confident 

11 

8.5 

9.8 

100.0 

Total 

112 

86.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

17 

13.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



C.1.7 How confident are you in connecting Digital Technology content to relevant, 
real-world applications and career examples 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Very confident 

39 

30.2 

34.8 

34.8 

Somewhat confident 

39 

30.2 

34.8 

69.6 

Slightly confident 

23 

17.8 

20.5 

90.2 

Not confident 

11 

8.5 

9.8 

100.0 




Total 

112 

86.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

17 

13.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



C.1.8 When discussing skills and career opportunities with students, where do you 
place yourself on the following scale? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID 
PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE 
PERCENT 

Valid 

Digital Technology skills are important to everyone, no matter 
what job you plan to do 

53 

41.1 

49.5 

49.5 

2 

22 

17.1 

20.6 

70.1 

3 

24 

18.6 

22.4 

92.5 

4 

3 

2.3 

2.8 

95.3 

5 

0 

.0 

.0 

95.3 

6 

0 

.0 

.0 

95.3 

7 

3 

2.3 

2.8 

98.1 

8 

1 

.8 

.9 

99.1 

9 

1 

.8 

.9 

100.0 

Digital Technology skills are only important if you’re going into a 
STEM career 

0 

.0 

.0 

100.0 

Total 

107 

82.9 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

22 

17.1 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



C.1.9 In your opinion, how important is it for your students to have Digital 
Technology skills in order to get a good job in the future? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Low importance 

5 

3.9 

4.6 

4.6 

Moderately important 

34 

26.4 

31.2 

35.8 

Very important 

70 

54.3 

64.2 

100.0 

Total 

109 

84.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

20 

15.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 


 Barriers and Enablers to Participation 

4.5 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements 
related to Digital Technology participation? 

D.1.1 The media portrays more men as Digital Technology role models 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

.9 

.9 

Disagree 

17 

13.2 

15.7 

16.7 

Agree 

56 

43.4 

51.9 

68.5 

Strongly agree 

34 

26.4 

31.5 

100.0 

Total 

108 

83.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

21 

16.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.2 Digital Technology skills are important when considering employment options 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

.9 

.9 

Disagree 

4 

3.1 

3.7 

4.6 

Agree 

53 

41.1 

48.6 

53.2 

Strongly agree 

51 

39.5 

46.8 

100.0 

Total 

109 

84.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

20 

15.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.3 There is too much emphasis on getting girls into Digital Technology 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

32 

24.8 

29.6 

29.6 

Disagree 

63 

48.8 

58.3 

88.0 

Agree 

9 

7.0 

8.3 

96.3 

Strongly agree 

4 

3.1 

3.7 

100.0 

Total 

108 

83.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

21 

16.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 




D.1.4 Interest in Digital Technology is cultivated from a young age 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

5 

3.9 

4.6 

4.6 

Disagree 

12 

9.3 

11.1 

15.7 

Agree 

53 

41.1 

49.1 

64.8 

Strongly agree 

38 

29.5 

35.2 

100.0 

Total 

108 

83.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

21 

16.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.5 Boys and girls have the same career opportunities in Digital Technology-
related sectors 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

15 

11.6 

13.9 

13.9 

Disagree 

43 

33.3 

39.8 

53.7 

Agree 

40 

31.0 

37.0 

90.7 

Strongly agree 

10 

7.8 

9.3 

100.0 

Total 

108 

83.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

21 

16.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.6 It is easier to engage boys with Digital Technology subjects than other subjects 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

5 

3.9 

4.6 

4.6 

Disagree 

49 

38.0 

45.4 

50.0 

Agree 

41 

31.8 

38.0 

88.0 

Strongly agree 

13 

10.1 

12.0 

100.0 

Total 

108 

83.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

21 

16.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.7 The number of jobs requiring Digital Technology skills is growing 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Disagree 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

1.9 

Agree 

34 

26.4 

31.5 

33.3 

Strongly agree 

72 

55.8 

66.7 

100.0 

Total 

108 

83.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

21 

16.3 

 

 




Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.8 The portrayal of Digital Technology is very stereotypical (e.g. IT nerds) 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

1.9 

Disagree 

14 

10.9 

13.0 

14.8 

Agree 

59 

45.7 

54.6 

69.4 

Strongly agree 

33 

25.6 

30.6 

100.0 

Total 

108 

83.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

21 

16.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.9 Digital Technology skills are important for everyday life 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

1.9 

Disagree 

4 

3.1 

3.7 

5.6 

Agree 

37 

28.7 

34.6 

40.2 

Strongly agree 

64 

49.6 

59.8 

100.0 

Total 

107 

82.9 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

22 

17.1 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.10 Digital Technology-related careers are more suited to boys than girls 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

60 

46.5 

56.1 

56.1 

Disagree 

40 

31.0 

37.4 

93.5 

Agree 

7 

5.4 

6.5 

100.0 

Total 

107 

82.9 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

22 

17.1 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.11 Digital Technology skills are important for the Australian economy 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

1.9 

Agree 

31 

24.0 

29.0 

30.8 

Strongly agree 

74 

57.4 

69.2 

100.0 

Total 

107 

82.9 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

22 

17.1 

 

 




Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 

4.6 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements 
related to STEM participation? 

D.1.12 The media portrays more men as STEM role models 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

.9 

.9 

Disagree 

22 

17.1 

20.8 

21.7 

Agree 

53 

41.1 

50.0 

71.7 

Strongly agree 

30 

23.3 

28.3 

100.0 

Total 

106 

82.2 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

23 

17.8 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.13 STEM skills are important when considering employment options 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Disagree 

5 

3.9 

4.8 

5.7 

Agree 

59 

45.7 

56.2 

61.9 

Strongly agree 

40 

31.0 

38.1 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.14 There is too much emphasis on getting girls into STEM 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

31 

24.0 

29.5 

29.5 

Disagree 

60 

46.5 

57.1 

86.7 

Agree 

12 

9.3 

11.4 

98.1 

Strongly agree 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 


D.1.15 Interest in STEM is cultivated from a young age 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

4 

3.1 

3.8 

3.8 

Disagree 

13 

10.1 

12.4 

16.2 

Agree 

49 

38.0 

46.7 

62.9 

Strongly agree 

39 

30.2 

37.1 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.16 Boys and girls have the same career opportunities in STEM-related sectors 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

12 

9.3 

11.5 

11.5 

Disagree 

43 

33.3 

41.3 

52.9 

Agree 

39 

30.2 

37.5 

90.4 

Strongly agree 

10 

7.8 

9.6 

100.0 

Total 

104 

80.6 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

25 

19.4 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.17 It is easier to engage boys with STEM subjects than other subjects 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

6 

4.7 

5.7 

5.7 

Disagree 

49 

38.0 

46.7 

52.4 

Agree 

38 

29.5 

36.2 

88.6 

Strongly agree 

12 

9.3 

11.4 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.18 The number of jobs requiring STEM skills is growing 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Disagree 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

2.9 

Agree 

38 

29.5 

36.2 

39.0 

Strongly agree 

64 

49.6 

61.0 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 




Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.19 The portrayal of STEM is very stereotypical (e.g. white lab coats) 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

3 

2.3 

2.9 

2.9 

Disagree 

28 

21.7 

26.7 

29.5 

Agree 

48 

37.2 

45.7 

75.2 

Strongly agree 

26 

20.2 

24.8 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.20 STEM skills are important for everyday life 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Disagree 

3 

2.3 

2.9 

3.8 

Agree 

49 

38.0 

46.7 

50.5 

Strongly agree 

52 

40.3 

49.5 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.21 STEM-related careers are more suited to boys than girls 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

55 

42.6 

52.9 

52.9 

Disagree 

44 

34.1 

42.3 

95.2 

Agree 

4 

3.1 

3.8 

99.0 

Strongly agree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

100.0 

Total 

104 

80.6 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

25 

19.4 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.22 STEM skills are important for the Australian economy 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Agree 

28 

21.7 

26.9 

27.9 

Strongly agree 

75 

58.1 

72.1 

100.0 

Total 

104 

80.6 

100.0 

 




Missing 

System 

25 

19.4 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 

4.7 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements 
related to STEM participation? 

D.1.23 The media portrays more men as STEM role models 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

.9 

.9 

Disagree 

22 

17.1 

20.8 

21.7 

Agree 

53 

41.1 

50.0 

71.7 

Strongly agree 

30 

23.3 

28.3 

100.0 

Total 

106 

82.2 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

23 

17.8 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.24 STEM skills are important when considering employment options 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Disagree 

5 

3.9 

4.8 

5.7 

Agree 

59 

45.7 

56.2 

61.9 

Strongly agree 

40 

31.0 

38.1 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.25 There is too much emphasis on getting girls into STEM 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

31 

24.0 

29.5 

29.5 

Disagree 

60 

46.5 

57.1 

86.7 

Agree 

12 

9.3 

11.4 

98.1 

Strongly agree 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 


D.1.26 Interest in STEM is cultivated from a young age 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

4 

3.1 

3.8 

3.8 

Disagree 

13 

10.1 

12.4 

16.2 

Agree 

49 

38.0 

46.7 

62.9 

Strongly agree 

39 

30.2 

37.1 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.27 Boys and girls have the same career opportunities in STEM-related sectors 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

12 

9.3 

11.5 

11.5 

Disagree 

43 

33.3 

41.3 

52.9 

Agree 

39 

30.2 

37.5 

90.4 

Strongly agree 

10 

7.8 

9.6 

100.0 

Total 

104 

80.6 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

25 

19.4 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.28 It is easier to engage boys with STEM subjects than other subjects 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

6 

4.7 

5.7 

5.7 

Disagree 

49 

38.0 

46.7 

52.4 

Agree 

38 

29.5 

36.2 

88.6 

Strongly agree 

12 

9.3 

11.4 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.29 The number of jobs requiring STEM skills is growing 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Disagree 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

2.9 

Agree 

38 

29.5 

36.2 

39.0 

Strongly agree 

64 

49.6 

61.0 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 




Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.30 The portrayal of STEM is very stereotypical (e.g. white lab coats) 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

3 

2.3 

2.9 

2.9 

Disagree 

28 

21.7 

26.7 

29.5 

Agree 

48 

37.2 

45.7 

75.2 

Strongly agree 

26 

20.2 

24.8 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.31 STEM skills are important for everyday life 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Disagree 

3 

2.3 

2.9 

3.8 

Agree 

49 

38.0 

46.7 

50.5 

Strongly agree 

52 

40.3 

49.5 

100.0 

Total 

105 

81.4 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

24 

18.6 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.32 STEM-related careers are more suited to boys than girls 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

55 

42.6 

52.9 

52.9 

Disagree 

44 

34.1 

42.3 

95.2 

Agree 

4 

3.1 

3.8 

99.0 

Strongly agree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

100.0 

Total 

104 

80.6 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

25 

19.4 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.33 STEM skills are important for the Australian economy 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Strongly disagree 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Agree 

28 

21.7 

26.9 

27.9 

Strongly agree 

75 

58.1 

72.1 

100.0 

Total 

104 

80.6 

100.0 

 




Missing 

System 

25 

19.4 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 

4.8 Please select the degree to which you believe the following factors 
are important in your students’ attitudes to Digital Technology 
subjects. 

D.1.34 Mother's influence 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

1.9 

Low importance 

8 

6.2 

7.8 

9.7 

Moderately important 

42 

32.6 

40.8 

50.5 

Very important 

51 

39.5 

49.5 

100.0 

Total 

103 

79.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

26 

20.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.35 Father's influence 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

1.9 

Low importance 

9 

7.0 

8.7 

10.7 

Moderately important 

39 

30.2 

37.9 

48.5 

Very important 

53 

41.1 

51.5 

100.0 

Total 

103 

79.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

26 

20.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.36 Male siblings' influence 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Low importance 

20 

15.5 

19.6 

20.6 

Moderately important 

59 

45.7 

57.8 

78.4 

Very important 

22 

17.1 

21.6 

100.0 

Total 

102 

79.1 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

27 

20.9 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 


D.1.37 Female siblings' influence 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Low importance 

19 

14.7 

18.6 

19.6 

Moderately important 

55 

42.6 

53.9 

73.5 

Very important 

27 

20.9 

26.5 

100.0 

Total 

102 

79.1 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

27 

20.9 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.38 Peer influence 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Low importance 

5 

3.9 

4.9 

4.9 

Moderately important 

43 

33.3 

42.2 

47.1 

Very important 

54 

41.9 

52.9 

100.0 

Total 

102 

79.1 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

27 

20.9 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.39 Teachers' influence 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Low importance 

8 

6.2 

7.8 

7.8 

Moderately important 

51 

39.5 

50.0 

57.8 

Very important 

43 

33.3 

42.2 

100.0 

Total 

102 

79.1 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

27 

20.9 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.40 Career counsellors' influence 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

8 

6.2 

7.9 

7.9 

Low importance 

30 

23.3 

29.7 

37.6 

Moderately important 

44 

34.1 

43.6 

81.2 

Very important 

19 

14.7 

18.8 

100.0 

Total 

101 

78.3 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

28 

21.7 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 




D.1.41 Role models' influence 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Low importance 

7 

5.4 

6.9 

7.8 

Moderately important 

36 

27.9 

35.3 

43.1 

Very important 

58 

45.0 

56.9 

100.0 

Total 

102 

79.1 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

27 

20.9 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.42 The influence of society in general 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

2 

1.6 

1.9 

1.9 

Low importance 

8 

6.2 

7.8 

9.7 

Moderately important 

45 

34.9 

43.7 

53.4 

Very important 

48 

37.2 

46.6 

100.0 

Total 

103 

79.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

26 

20.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.43 Lower level of difficulty in studying the subjects 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

7 

5.4 

6.9 

6.9 

Low importance 

37 

28.7 

36.6 

43.6 

Moderately important 

34 

26.4 

33.7 

77.2 

Very important 

23 

17.8 

22.8 

100.0 

Total 

101 

78.3 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

28 

21.7 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.44 Their own ability/skills 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Low importance 

8 

6.2 

7.8 

8.7 

Moderately important 

51 

39.5 

49.5 

58.3 

Very important 

43 

33.3 

41.7 

100.0 

Total 

103 

79.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

26 

20.2 

 

 




Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.45 Their interest/passion 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Moderately important 

20 

15.5 

19.4 

20.4 

Very important 

82 

63.6 

79.6 

100.0 

Total 

103 

79.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

26 

20.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.46 Greater chance of pursuing these subjects in college/university 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

5 

3.9 

4.9 

4.9 

Low importance 

19 

14.7 

18.6 

23.5 

Moderately important 

61 

47.3 

59.8 

83.3 

Very important 

17 

13.2 

16.7 

100.0 

Total 

102 

79.1 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

27 

20.9 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.47 Greater chance of employability 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

5 

3.9 

4.9 

4.9 

Low importance 

21 

16.3 

20.4 

25.2 

Moderately important 

46 

35.7 

44.7 

69.9 

Very important 

31 

24.0 

30.1 

100.0 

Total 

103 

79.8 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

26 

20.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.1.1 Higher pay in the future 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all important 

5 

3.9 

4.9 

4.9 

Low importance 

19 

14.7 

18.4 

23.3 

Moderately important 

48 

37.2 

46.6 

69.9 

Very important 

31 

24.0 

30.1 

100.0 

Total 

103 

79.8 

100.0 

 




Missing 

System 

26 

20.2 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 

4.9 If you consider there are any subjects boys study more than girls, 
which subjects do boys study more than girls? (Please select all that 
apply) 

D.1.2 Case Summary 

Cases 

VALID 

MISSING 

TOTAL 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

q13a 

93 

72.1% 

36 

27.9% 

129 

100.0% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 

RESPONSES 

 

 

N 

PERCENT 

PERCENT OF CASES 

Boys study more than girlsa 

Engineering 

83 

26.6% 

89.2% 

Mathematics 

59 

18.9% 

63.4% 

Science 

37 

11.9% 

39.8% 

Sport 

53 

17.0% 

57.0% 

Technology 

68 

21.8% 

73.1% 

Other 

12 

3.8% 

12.9% 

Total 

312 

100.0% 

335.5% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

D.1.3 Other subject boys study more than girls 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

8.3 

Design Technologies 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

16.7 

Economics 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

25.0 

Higher level mathematics 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

33.3 

Physics 

7 

58.3 

58.3 

91.7 

Woodwork/metalwork 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

100.0 

Total 

12 

100.0 

100.0 

 



 


4.10 If you consider there are any subjects girls study more than boys, 
which subjects do girls study more than boys? (Please select all that 
apply) 

D.1.4 Case Summary 

Cases 

VALID 

MISSING 

TOTAL 

N 


PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

q14a 

92 

71.3% 

37 

28.7% 

129 

100.0% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

RESPONSES 

 

 

N 

PERCENT 

PERCENT OF CASES 

Girls study more than boysa 

Arts 

79 

31.5% 

85.9% 

Engineering 

3 

1.2% 

3.3% 

English 

65 

25.9% 

70.7% 

Mathematics 

3 

1.2% 

3.3% 

Science 

16 

6.4% 

17.4% 

Social Science 

65 

25.9% 

70.7% 

Sport 

4 

1.6% 

4.3% 

Technology 

4 

1.6% 

4.3% 

Other 

12 

4.8% 

13.0% 

Total 

251 

100.0% 

272.8% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

D.1.5 Other subject girls study more than boys 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Biology 

3 

25.0 

25.0 

25.0 

Dance, Netball (specialist programs) 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

33.3 

Education 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

41.7 

Food science, drama 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

50.0 

Home economics, textiles and 
psychology 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

58.3 

Languages 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

66.7 

Music 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

75.0 

Nursing, Law, Teaching 

1 

8.3 

8.3 

83.3 

Psychology 

2 

16.7 

16.7 

100.0 

Total 

12 

100.0 

100.0 

 



 


4.10.1 Who do you believe are more confident in the following subjects? 

Arts 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Boys and girls are equally confident 

41 

31.8 

41.4 

41.4 

Girls are more confident 

58 

45.0 

58.6 

100.0 

Total 

99 

76.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

30 

23.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



Engineering 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Boys are more confident 

71 

55.0 

71.0 

71.0 

Boys and girls are equally confident 

27 

20.9 

27.0 

98.0 

Girls are more confident 

2 

1.6 

2.0 

100.0 

Total 

100 

77.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

29 

22.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 

English 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Boys and girls are equally confident 

47 

36.4 

47.0 

47.0 

Girls are more confident 

53 

41.1 

53.0 

100.0 

Total 

100 

77.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

29 

22.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



Mathematics 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Boys are more confident 

42 

32.6 

42.0 

42.0 

Boys and girls are equally confident 

57 

44.2 

57.0 

99.0 

Girls are more confident 

1 

.8 

1.0 

100.0 

Total 

100 

77.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

29 

22.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 

Science 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Boys are more confident 

29 

22.5 

29.3 

29.3 

Boys and girls are equally confident 

63 

48.8 

63.6 

92.9 

Girls are more confident 

7 

5.4 

7.1 

100.0 




Total 

99 

76.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

30 

23.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



Social Science 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Boys are more confident 

2 

1.6 

2.0 

2.0 

Boys and girls are equally confident 

48 

37.2 

48.5 

50.5 

Girls are more confident 

49 

38.0 

49.5 

100.0 

Total 

99 

76.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

30 

23.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 

Sport 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Boys are more confident 

58 

45.0 

58.6 

58.6 

Boys and girls are equally 
confident 

41 

31.8 

41.4 

100.0 

Total 

99 

76.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

30 

23.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



Technology 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Boys are more confident 

60 

46.5 

61.2 

61.2 

Boys and girls are equally 
confident 

37 

28.7 

37.8 

99.0 

Girls are more confident 

1 

.8 

1.0 

100.0 

Total 

98 

76.0 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

31 

24.0 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 


5 STEM in the workplace 

Women currently hold a smaller proportion of STEM roles in industry and in the government and 
are less represented in academic positions in maths, science and engineering at universities. The 
following factors are sometimes given as a reason for this difference. 

D.2 How valid do you think each of these reasons are? 

D.2.1 Boys and girls tend to receive different levels of encouragement for developing 
scientific interest 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all valid 

18 

14.0 

18.0 

18.0 

Somewhat valid 

28 

21.7 

28.0 

46.0 

Mostly valid 

32 

24.8 

32.0 

78.0 

Completely valid 

22 

17.1 

22.0 

100.0 

Total 

100 

77.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

29 

22.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.2.2 On average, men and women differ in their willingness to devote the time 
required by such high-powered positions 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all valid 

48 

37.2 

48.5 

48.5 

Somewhat valid 

26 

20.2 

26.3 

74.7 

Mostly valid 

17 

13.2 

17.2 

91.9 

Completely valid 

8 

6.2 

8.1 

100.0 

Total 

99 

76.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

30 

23.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.2.3 On average, men and women differ in their willingness to spend time away 
from their families 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all valid 

18 

14.0 

18.4 

18.4 

Somewhat valid 

39 

30.2 

39.8 

58.2 

Mostly valid 

25 

19.4 

25.5 

83.7 

Completely valid 

16 

12.4 

16.3 

100.0 




Total 

98 

76.0 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

31 

24.0 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.2.4 On average, men and women differ naturally in their scientific interest 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all valid 

73 

56.6 

73.7 

73.7 

Somewhat valid 

14 

10.9 

14.1 

87.9 

Mostly valid 

11 

8.5 

11.1 

99.0 

Completely valid 

1 

.8 

1.0 

100.0 

Total 

99 

76.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

30 

23.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.2.5 On average, whether consciously or unconsciously, men are favoured in hiring 
and promotion 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all valid 

16 

12.4 

16.0 

16.0 

Somewhat valid 

26 

20.2 

26.0 

42.0 

Mostly valid 

25 

19.4 

25.0 

67.0 

Completely valid 

33 

25.6 

33.0 

100.0 

Total 

100 

77.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

29 

22.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



D.2.6 There is a greater proportion of men than women with the very highest levels 
of mathematic ability 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Not at all valid 

62 

48.1 

62.6 

62.6 

Somewhat valid 

20 

15.5 

20.2 

82.8 

Mostly valid 

10 

7.8 

10.1 

92.9 

Completely valid 

7 

5.4 

7.1 

100.0 

Total 

99 

76.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

30 

23.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 




D.3 A little bit about you 

5.1.1 What is your gender? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Female 

63 

48.8 

64.3 

64.3 

Male 

33 

25.6 

33.7 

98.0 

Other or prefer not to answer 

2 

1.6 

2.0 

100.0 

Total 

98 

76.0 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

31 

24.0 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



5.1.2 What is your age? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Younger than 25 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

25-29 

4 

3.1 

4.0 

5.1 

30-39 

17 

13.2 

17.2 

22.2 

40-49 

36 

27.9 

36.4 

58.6 

50-59 

30 

23.3 

30.3 

88.9 

60 years or older 

11 

8.5 

11.1 

100.0 

Total 

99 

76.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

30 

23.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



5.1.3 How many years teaching experience do you have? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Less than 1 year 

2 

1.6 

2.0 

2.0 

1 to 2 years 

4 

3.1 

4.0 

6.0 

3 to 5 years 

8 

6.2 

8.0 

14.0 

6 to 10 years 

17 

13.2 

17.0 

31.0 

11 to 15 years 

16 

12.4 

16.0 

47.0 

16 to 20 years 

16 

12.4 

16.0 

63.0 

More than 20 years 

37 

28.7 

37.0 

100.0 

Total 

100 

77.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

29 

22.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 


5.1.4 What is the highest teaching qualification you have completed? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Diploma or Associate Diploma 

1 

.8 

1.0 

1.0 

Bachelor Degree 

30 

23.3 

30.0 

31.0 

Graduate Diploma or Graduate 
Certificate 

31 

24.0 

31.0 

62.0 

Master's Degree 

34 

26.4 

34.0 

96.0 

Doctoral Degree 

3 

2.3 

3.0 

99.0 

Other 

1 

.8 

1.0 

100.0 

Total 

100 

77.5 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

29 

22.5 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



5.1.5 What is the major field of study in your teaching qualification? 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

Primary 

29 

22.5 

29.3 

29.3 

Middle-School 

1 

.8 

1.0 

30.3 

Secondary 

62 

48.1 

62.6 

92.9 

Combined F-12 

5 

3.9 

5.1 

98.0 

Other 

2 

1.6 

2.0 

100.0 

Total 

99 

76.7 

100.0 

 

Missing 

System 

30 

23.3 

 

 

Total 

129 

100.0 

 

 



 

5.2 As part of your teaching qualification, what was your area of 
specialisation? (Please select all that apply) 

5.2.1 Case Summary 

Cases 

VALID 

MISSING 

TOTAL 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

quala 

100 

77.5% 

29 

22.5% 

129 

100.0% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 

 

 


 

RESPONSES 

 

 

N 

PERCENT 

PERCENT OF CASES 

As part of your teaching qualification, what was your area of 
specialisation?a 

Science 

31 

20.3% 

31.0% 

Mathematics 

47 

30.7% 

47.0% 

Technology 

33 

21.6% 

33.0% 

Generalist 

15 

9.8% 

15.0% 

Other specialisation 

27 

17.6% 

27.0% 

Total 

153 

100.0% 

153.0% 



 

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 

Other specialisation description 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

No response 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

3.7 

Art/Arts/Arts Specialist/Visual Art 

4 

14.8 

14.8 

18.5 

Chemistry 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

22.2 

Drama & English 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

29.6 

English 

2 

7.4 

7.4 

33.3 

English and History 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

37.0 

 

English, Drama, SEN 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

48.1 

Gifted Education 

3 

11.1 

11.1 

51.9 

HASS 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

55.6 

Health Sciences 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

59.3 

History 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

63.0 

Languages 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

66.7 

Languages/English 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

70.4 

Literacy 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

74.1 

Music 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

77.8 

PDHPE 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

81.5 

Physical Education and Behavioural 
Studies 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

85.2 

Physics 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

88.9 

Prior Engineering qualification 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

92.6 

Teacher librarian 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

96.3 

Teaching English as a Second Language 

1 

3.7 

3.7 

100.0 

Total 

27 

100.0 

100.0 

 



 


5.2.2 Did you have any of the following qualifications or experiences related to STEM 
prior to working in the education sector? (Please select all that apply) 

Case Summary 

Cases 

VALID 

MISSING 

TOTAL 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

N 

PERCENT 

priora 

97 

75.2% 

32 

24.8% 

129 

100.0% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 

RESPONSES 

PERCENT OF CASES 

 

N 

PERCENT 

 

Did you have any of the 
following 
qualifications/experiences 
related to STEM prior to working 
in the education sector?a 

Certificate or diploma related to STEM 

8 

5.8% 

8.2% 

Undergraduate degree related to STEM 

40 

29.0% 

41.2% 

Postgraduate qualification related to STEM 

21 

15.2% 

21.6% 

STEM subject(s) covered within a non-STEM 
VET/university qualification 

3 

2.2% 

3.1% 

Career/job in STEM related field 

31 

22.5% 

32.0% 

Other prior STEM qualification or experience 

6 

4.3% 

6.2% 

None of the above 

29 

21.0% 

29.9% 

Total 

138 

100.0% 

142.3% 



a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

Description of other prior STEM qualification or experience 

FREQUENCY 

PERCENT 

VALID PERCENT 

CUMULATIVE PERCENT 

Valid 

No response 

1 

16.7 

16.7 

16.7 

A Grade Electrical Mechanic 

1 

16.7 

16.7 

33.3 

Actuarial science 

1 

16.7 

16.7 

50.0 

Geology summer school 

1 

16.7 

16.7 

66.7 

I was the STEM/ICT teacher for a number of years 

1 

16.7 

16.7 

83.3 

Taught STEM topics with maths classes 

1 

16.7 

16.7 

100.0 

Total 

6 

100.0 

100.0 

 



 

5.3 Student forum counts (14 students) 

P6281#y1
5.3.1 What is your gender? 

 

 

 

FREQUENCY 

Valid 

Female 

12 

Male 

1 

Other/prefer not to answer 

1 




Total 

14 



 

P6304#y1
5.3.2 What year level are you in this year? 

 

 

 

FREQUENCY 

Valid 

Year 8 

1 

Year 9 

13 

Total 

14 



 

5.3.3 Do you study digital technology at school? 

 

 

 

FREQUENCY 

Valid 

Yes 

4 

No 

5 

Don’t know 

5 

Total 

14 



 

5.3.4 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding 
studying STEM and Digital Technology subjects? 

 

STRONGLY 
DISAGREE 

DISAGREE 

AGREE 

STRONGLY 
AGREE 

At school 

I like mathematics. 

1 

7 

5 

1 

I like science. 

0 

5 

8 

1 

I like Digital Technology. 

0 

7 

6 

0 

I am curious about mathematics. 

0 

8 

5 

1 

I am curious about science. 

0 

4 

9 

1 

I am curious about Digital Technology. 

0 

8 

5 

1 

I do well in mathematics. 

1 

5 

6 

2 

I do well in science. 

1 

1 

11 

1 

I do well in Digital Technology. 

0 

4 

5 

0 

Future plans 

I wish to continue studying mathematics. 

0 

6 

6 

2 

I wish to continue studying science. 

0 

3 

8 

3 

I wish to continue studying Digital Technology. 

2 

5 

5 

0 

I am interested in a career involving mathematics. 

1 

7 

5 

1 

I am interested in a career involving science. 

0 

8 

3 

3 

I am interested in a career involving Digital Technology. 

3 

5 

5 

1 




Beliefs 

It is important to study mathematics because it will help me for my 
future. 

0 

1 

6 

7 

It is important to study science because it will help me for my future. 

0 

0 

7 

7 

It is important to study Digital Technology because it will help me for 
my future. 

1 

2 

9 

2 

It is important to study mathematics because it is useful in my daily life. 

0 

2 

8 

4 

It is important to study science because it is useful in my daily life. 

0 

1 

9 

3 

It is important to study Digital Technology because it is useful in my 
daily life. 

1 

2 

8 

3 



5.3.5 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements related to 
Digital Technology and STEM participation? 

 

STRONGLY 
DISAGREE 

DISAGREE 

AGREE 

STRONGLY 
AGREE 

Digital Technology 

The media portrays more men as Digital Technology role models 

0 

1 

11 

2 

Digital Technology skills are important when considering employment 
options 

0 

2 

10 

1 

Boys and girls have the same career opportunities in Digital 
Technology-related sectors 

1 

8 

3 

1 

Boys find Digital Technology subjects easier than girls 

2 

5 

6 

0 

The number of jobs requiring Digital Technology skills is growing 

0 

1 

11 

2 

The portrayal of Digital Technology is very stereotypical (e.g. IT nerds) 

0 

0 

11 

3 

Digital Technology-related careers are more suited to boys than girls 

3 

4 

7 

0 

Digital Technology skills are important for the Australian economy 

0 

2 

9 

3 

STEM 

The media portrays more men as STEM role models 

0 

3 

7 

4 

STEM skills are important when considering employment options 

0 

2 

9 

3 

Boys and girls have the same career opportunities in STEM-related 
sectors 

0 

6 

7 

0 

Boys find STEM subjects easier than girls 

4 

4 

5 

0 

The number of jobs requiring STEM skills is growing 

0 

0 

10 

3 

The portrayal of STEM is very stereotypical (e.g. white lab coats) 

0 

1 

10 

3 

STEM-related careers are more suited to boys than girls 

2 

8 

4 

0 

STEM skills are important for the Australian economy 

0 

2 

11 

1 



5.3.6 Please select the degree to which you believe the following factors are important 
in your attitude to Digital Technology subjects. 

 

NOT AT ALL 

IMPORTANT 

LOW 

IMPORTANCE 

MODERATELY 

IMPORTANT 

VERY 

IMPORTANT 

NOT 

APPLICABLE 

Mother’s influence 

0 

0 

4 

10 

0 

Father’s influence 

0 

1 

2 

10 

1 




Lower level of difficulty in studying 
the subjects 

1 

3 

4 

4 

2 

My own ability/skills 

0 

0 

1 

11 

2 

My interest/passion 

0 

0 

1 

11 

2 

Greater chance of pursuing these 
subjects in college/university 

0 

1 

4 

9 

0 

Greater chance of employability 

0 

1 

4 

7 

2 

Higher pay in the future 

0 

0 

5 

6 

3 

Male siblings’ influence 

2 

3 

4 

3 

2 

Female siblings’ influence 

1 

3 

5 

3 

2 

Peer influence 

2 

4 

4 

4 

0 

Teachers’ influence 

0 

2 

6 

5 

1 

Career counsellors’ influence 

1 

1 

5 

5 

2 

Role models’ influence 

0 

0 

6 

6 

2 

The influence of society in general 

0 

3 

4 

6 

1 



 

5.3.7 Who do you believe are more confident in the following subjects? 

 

BOYS ARE MORE 
CONFIDENT 

BOYS AND GIRLS ARE 
EQUALLY CONFIDENT 

GIRLS ARE MORE 
CONFIDENT 

Arts 

1 

5 

7 

Biology 

0 

11 

3 

Chemistry 

1 

9 

4 

Engineering 

11 

3 

0 

English 

0 

6 

8 

Geology 

4 

10 

0 

Mathematics 

1 

10 

3 

Physics 

2 

10 

2 

Social Science 

2 

9 

3 

Space Science 

6 

8 

0 

Sport 

8 

6 

0 

Technology 

10 

4 

0 



 


References 

Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy & Resources. (2018). Australia’s 
Tech Future. Retrieved from https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-
12/australias-tech- future.pdf 

Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy & Resources. (2020a). STEM 
Equity Monitor Summary Report 2020. Retrieved from 
https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A86239 


As Australia’s national science agency and 
innovation catalyst, CSIRO is solving the 
greatest challenges through innovative 
science and technology. 

CSIRO. Unlocking a better future for everyone. 

Contact us 

1300 363 400 

csiro.au/contact 

csiro.au 

For further information 

 

CSIRO Education and Outreach 

Chris Banks 

Manager, Impact and Evaluation 
chris.banks@csiro.au 

csiro.au/education 

 



P6797#y3