___

• AAUW, American Association of University Women (2010). Improve girls’ and women’s opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and math .Washington DC: AAUW Educational Foundation. www.aauw.org.
• Adams, C., Chamberlin, S., Gavin, M., Schultz, C., Sheffield, L., & Subotnik, R. (2008). The STEM promise: Recognizing and developing talent and expanding opportunities for promising students of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.nagc.org/
• Ainley, J., Kos, J., & Nicholas, M. (2008). Participation in science, mathematics and technology in Australian education. http://research.acer.edu.au/acer_monographs/4
• Aronson, J., Steele, C.M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of human competence, motivation, and self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113-125.
• Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/women-stem-gender-gap-innovation
• Ceci, S., Williams, W., & Barnett, S. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218-261.
• College Board. (2014). “The 10th annual AP report to the nation.” New York, NY. http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/rtn/10th-annual/10th-annual-ap-report-to-the-nation-single-page.pdf
• Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of bias and self-assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691-1730.
• Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
• Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets and malleable minds: Implications for giftedness and talent. In Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education. Storrs, Conn: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., and B. Uzzi. (2000). Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051
• Freeman, J. (2003). Gender difference in gifted achievement in Britain and the U.S.. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 202-211. doi: 10.1177/001698620304700304
• Ganley, C. M., Vasilyeva, M., & Dulaney, A. (2014). Spatial Ability Mediates the Gender Difference in Middle School Students' Science Performance. Child Development, 85(4), 1419-1432.
• Good, C. (2012). Reformulating the talent equation: Implications for gifted students’ sense of belonging and achievement. In Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education. Storrs, Conn: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Hall, R. M., Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women. Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
• Halpern, D., Aronson, J., Reimer, N., Simpkins, S., Star, J., & Wentzel, K. (2007). Encouraging girls in math and science: IES practice guide (NCER 2007-2003). Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/20072003.pdf
• Harackiewicz, J. M., Hulleman, C. S., Hyde, J. S., Rozek, C. S. & Svoboda, R. C., (2014). Gender differences in the effects of a utility-value intervention to help parents motivate adolescents in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, Jun. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036981
• Heilbronner, N. N. (2012). The STEM pathway for women: What has changed?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 39-55. doi: 10.1177/0016986212460085
• Heller, K. A., & Ziedler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and science: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 200-210. doi:10.1177/0016986208315834
• Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
• Howard-Brown, B., & Martinez, D. (2012). Briefing Papers. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://secc.sedl.org/resources/briefs/diverse_learners_STEM/
• Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412
• Jansen, N., & Joukes, G. (2012). Long term, interrelated interventions to increase women’s participation in STEM in the Netherlands. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 5(3), 305-316.
• Jolly, J. L. (2009). The national defense education act, current STEM initiative, and the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 50-53.
• Kane, J., & Mertz, J. (2012). Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance. http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf/.
• Kekelis, L., Ancheta, R. W., & Heber, A. E. (2005). Hurdles in the pipeline: Girls and technology careers. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 26(1), 106-107.
• Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2013). Spatial ability: A neglected talent in educational and occupational settings.Roeper Review, 35, 219-230.
• Lavy, V. (2008). Do gender stereotypes reduce girls' or boys' human capital outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 922083-2105. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.02.009
• Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 344-351.
• Maltese, A., & Tai, R. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 877-907.
• Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2009). Women engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institutional study of women engineering student self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, Jan., 27-38.
• Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234–1237
• Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879-885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
• National Science Foundation. (2010). Preparing the next generation of stem innovators: Identifying and developing our nation's human capital. Nsb-10-33. https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf
• National Science Foundation. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011. Arlington, VA: Author http://www. nsf.gov/statistics/wmpdNational Science Foundation. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/
• Nosek, B. et al. (1999). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106(26), 10593–97.
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011), “How do girls compare to boys in mathematics skills?”, in PISA 2009 at a Glance, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095250-8-en
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I), OECD Publishing.
• Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. (2012). It's ok — Not everyone can be good at math: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 731-737.
• Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 26-35. doi: 10.1177/001698629103500104
• Schweingruber, H., Brandenburg, C., & Miller, L. (2001). Middle school students’ technology practices and preferences: Re-examining gender differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(2), 125-140.
• Southeast Comprehensive Center (2012). Engaging Diverse Learners Through the Provision of STEM Education Opportunities. http://secc.sedl.org/resources/briefs/diverse_learners_STEM/Diverse_Learners_through_STEM.pdf
• Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28.
• STEMConnector. (2014). Million women mentors. http://www.millionwomenmentors.org/Stieff, M., & Uttal, D. (2015). How much can spatial training improve STEM achievement?. Educational Psychology Review, doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9304-8
• Subotnik, R. (2012). Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education. Storrs, Conn.: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Subotnik, R., Edmiston, A., & Rayhack, K. (2007). Developing national policies in STEM talent development: Obstacles and opportunities. In Science Education: Models and Networking of Student Research Training Under 21 (pp. 28-38). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
• Walton, G., & Cohen, G. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82-96.
• Walton, G., & Cohen, G. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447-1451.
• Walton, G., Spencer, S., & Erman, S. (2013). Affirmative meritocracy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7: 1–35.
• Watt, H. M., Richardson, P. W., & Devos, C. (2013). How does gender matter in the choice of a STEM teaching career and later teaching behaviors?. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 5(3), 187-206.
• Webb, R. M., Lubinski D. & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Spatial Ability: A Neglected Dimension in Talent Searches for Intellectually Precocious Youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 397–420.
• Yau, H. K., & Cheng, A. L. F. (2012). Gender difference of confidence in using technology for learning. Journal of Technology Studies, 38(2).