Introduction

Over the last few decades, tremendous efforts have been made to achieve gender equality in all sectors of society and consequently, progress has been made and public awareness has increased. Women are now more represented in many spheres of society (England, 2010). These improvements, nevertheless, have not happened proportionally. For instance, there is still a noticeable gender difference in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as numerous studies have documented (Berdousis & Kordaki, 2016; Hussénius, 2020; Sassler et al., 2017). Despite variations between nations, female participation in those fields is still low (Stoet & Geary, 2018).

Gender disparity in STEM education

The underrepresentation of female in STEM has been a continual concern both for researchers and policy-makers. According to a UNESCO report, only around 30% of all female students select STEM-related fields in higher education, while 28% of researchers working in related fields were female (Chavatzia, 2017, p. 20). The world Economic Forum report about employment and prospective outlook states that around 26% of jobs in the technology sector are carried out by women (World Economic Forum, 2016). These gender inequalities in STEM may be considerably more pronounced in develo** nations. According to reports made in the representative context of Brazil, the situation in the technological sector is especially gloomy. Women make up only 10% to 20% of the workforce overall, and they are disproportionately concentrated in jobs unrelated to technology manufacturing and senior management (Costa et al., 2020).

Previous research has also documented that the representation of women in STEM professions varies greatly (Makarem & Wang, 2020). In several STEM sectors, female representation has almost reached equality. For instance, at all degree levels—bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate—women held the majority of degrees in biology and psychology in 2016. Around 75% of all degrees in psychology were awarded to women. More than half of the degrees in biological sciences were awarded to women (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2019). In contrast, women were disproportionately underrepresented in professions like engineering (20%) and computer science (19%) (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2019). Even while computer science is expanding rapidly, women are still disproportionately underrepresented in the field, and the gender gap in computer science careers is only getting wider (Kahn & Ginther, 2017).

Increasing the representation of women in STEM

The underrepresentation of female in STEM education is a complicated issue with numerous root causes and solutions (Cheryan et al., 2017), which could fall into the following categories: early experience, self-confidence, attitude, and support (Schmader, 2022). According to research, women’s interest in pursuing careers in traditionally male-dominated fields like computer science (CS) is correlated with their level of self-confidence in their abilities in that field, and early opportunities to engage in computing can significantly contribute to the development of this confidence (Gürer & Camp, 2002). Previous studies on the topic of STEM identity and job choice have also found a link between students who have a strong STEM identity and their participation in STEM courses (Robnett & Thoman, 2017). Previous literature also suggests that more boys have good attitudes toward STEM and their applications, whereas more girls have negative attitudes (Sax, 2012). In addition, social support can have a significant impact on students’ academic progress as well as their ability to join and stay in the STEM program (Lent et al., 2008). Many researchers think that the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields is problematic because it reduces diversity, which could lead to fewer technological and scientific advancements. In addition, in professions like computer technology, where careers can be lucrative and high-status, women are disproportionately underrepresented, which is detrimental to social fairness. Hill et al., (2010). It has become necessary on a global scale to increase the number of women in STEM fields and foster the growth of STEM identity. Researchers have found a few elements that may foster the growth of STEM identity, including supportive role models, a family setting, and good learning experiences (Jackson & Suizzo, 2015; Miller & Kimmel, 2012). Early STEM exposure has also been linked to the development of one’s identity (Varelas et al., 2012).

Educational robotics competitions

Educational robotics provide hands-on learning in a playful environment with a combination of pedagogical activities, tools, and technologies, attracting school-age children to learn and apply the skills and knowledge in computer science (Scaradozzi et al., 2019). In recent years, robotics contests have grown in popularity and effectiveness as informal learning environments, with the potential to boost students’ interest in math and science and encourage them to seek careers in STEM (Hendricks et al., 2012). They give students the chance to meet and communicate with other computer science lovers from across the world as well as to study the world of computer science (Hendricks et al. 2012). Most robotics competitions focus on the function of education (Brancalião, 2022). As the competitions change in themes and categories, the challenges faced by the participants are on the rise. Students will probably encounter a huge variety of problems and difficulties, such as difficult tasks with a strict time limit (Krotkov et al., 2018), high-standard capacity in processing hardware and software, a certain amount of time invested in competitions (Pinto et al., 2020), patience in trials and errors and good team communication (Eguchi, 2016).

There are a number of recognized robotics tournaments worldwide, among which, the VEX Robotics Competition (VRC; https://www.vexrobotics.com), the robot competition organised by FIRST (http://www.usfirst.org/), Robo-One (http://www.robo-one.com), the World Robot Olympiad (WRO; http://www.wroboto.org) are arguably most popular (Aksu & Durak, 2019). The WRO stands different from all the other robotics competitions in that it stresses more on the promotion of educational robotics worldwide and less on the complexity and difficulty of the programs. Launched in 2004, the WRO was joined by a total of nearly one million participants. As a matter of fact, it hosted over 75,000 students from more than 28,000 teams in 75 countries in 2019 alone. There used to be four different categories offered in the WRO competitions, namely, Regular, Open, Advanced Robotics Challenge (ARC) and WRO Football (as shown in Table 1). Each category has its own different requirements and charm. Take the Open Category in 2019 as an example, the theme was Smart Cities which aimed to develop new concepts and ideas for building the cities of the future and changing existing forms of everyday life (https://wro2019.org/challenges/). As a project-based competition, it not only required students to create innovative and intelligent robot solutions according to the theme of the season but also showed robot solutions in front of many judges. The comprehensive strength of students will be examined, including their creativity, programming, building ability and presentation skills.

Table 1 Competition categories and requirements of WRO
Full size table

Research purpose and questions

Even though the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields has received extensive discussion, there are still not many researchers who concentrate on the gender disparity in robotics competitions. In a prior study, the authors analysed the impact of participating in the 2018 WRO on students from the perspectives of parents, students and coaches through in-depth interviews (Chiang et al., 2023), and found some differences in qualitative results and girls’ participation. In this study, with the official consent of the WRO organizing Committee, the authors intend to investigate the participation of females in WRO based on the 5-years statistics of registration between 2015 and 2019 provided by the Committee, with an aim to examine the advantages and difficulties of female engagement in STEM fields.

This study was supported by the five-year funded project of the World Robot Olympiad Association. The researcher took the girls who participated in the WRO competition as the research object, focused on analysing the participation of girls, and explored the advantages and challenges of girls’ participation in STEM activities. This study includes two parts. Firstly, the authors analysed the statistics of the WRO between 2015 and 2019 to understand girls’ participation in the WRO as a whole. Then, based on the statistical results of girls’ participation, the authors selected some representative all-girl teams as interview objects, and qualitatively explored the reasons behind girls’ participation in WRO from different perspectives. The research questions are as follows:

  • RQ1 What is the tendency of girls’ participation in WRO from 2015 to 2019 in terms of the four competition categories and three age groups?

  • RQ2 What advantages and challenges do the all-girl teams attending 2019 WRO International Final have from the perspectives of parents, coaches and students?

Methods

In order to explore RQ1, the research team contacted the WRO Organizing Committee and explained the research purpose, and obtained exclusive authorization of participants’ data. These data included participating countries and the number of teams, the number of teams entering the finals, the number of boys and girls entering the finals, and the percentage of boys and girls in each competition category and age group. One team member, after the statistical data from 2015 to 2019 were collected, used Microsoft Excel to analyze it. The second member of the team approved the analysis’s findings.

In order to explore RQ2, the research team, by using purposive sampling, chose six all-girl teams of the WRO International Finals in 2019 with an emphasis on the Open Category where females participated at a relatively high rate. Semi-structured interviews were done with the participants—students, coaches, and parents of these teams—by a male STEM education expert who was also an associate professor in field of education. Throughout the interviews, the researcher used neutral language. The details of the interview will be explained in some of the sections of the content that follow.

Participants

Participants related to RQ1

In the five years from 2015 to 2019, a total of 121,407 teams from 81 countries or regions participated in the WRO competition. As shown in Table 2, 2226 teams entered the international finals, accounting for an average of 1.8%. In the finals of five years, there were 1,031 girl participants, accounting for only 17.3% of the total number of 5,965. However, the percentage of boys had always remained above 80%. On the whole, girls’ participation in WRO finals was at a low level.

Table 2 Basic data of WRO participants in 2015–2019
Full size table

Participants related to RQ2

The six sample teams were from Japan, Lebanon, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Malaysia respectively. Each team had a coach and 2–3 girls aged from 10 to 16. The girls started to learn robotics from 9 to 12 years old and attended robotics centres both in and outside the campus. Before that some of them had been interested in making paper craft. Two girls were from families of engineering background. One girl had attended WRO held in Thailand in 2018. After understanding the research purpose, 6 male coaches, 12 girls participants and 2 female parents accompanying the team agreed to accept the semi-structured interview. The students were interviewed in groups while the coaches and parents were interviewed individually, each time lasting 10–20 min.

Interview protocol

The researchers adopted semi-structured interviews and raised 11 questions, including (1) what the motivation to attend this competition was (2) how the team was formed (3) what the team’s advantages were (4) whether preferring work with girls or boys (5) what the best part of the project was (6) what the most difficult part of project was (7) what the support and resources provided by the coach were (8) what factors hel** the team go through the difficult times (9) when the students became interested in robot programming (10) what the reward of this competition was (11) what the future career choices/major was. After much discussion, the research team decided to focus more on the major advantages and challenges faced by the students (especially all-girl teams) participating in the WRO finals and how they had done to go through the difficult times. Therefore, the interview protocol was determined as follows:

  • Q1 Compared with other teams (all-boy teams and mixed-gender teams), what is the major advantage of your team (Parents: your daughter’s team) ?

  • Q2 What’s the biggest problem your team (Parents: your daughter’s team) has encountered?

  • Q3 How did your team (Parents: your daughter’s team) do to solve the problem?

Data analysis of interview

After all the interviews were finished, the researchers used iflyrec (https://www.iflyrec.com/) to transcribe the interview audio recordings. A male researcher and a female researcher further examined and cross-checked the transcribed texts and used NVIVO 12.0 software to make quantitative analysis of 14 verified interview transcripts. The two researchers made a preliminary conceptual analysis and classification of interview transcripts to establish open coding. A total of 104 free nodes were formed in the open code, and the frequency was 128 times. The research team found it challenging to group in a useful fashion because the 104 free nodes covered the 11 preliminary interview questions and some of the questions had less weight than others. After much discussion, the research team decided to focus more on the major advantages and challenges faced by the all-girl teams and how they had done to go through the difficult times. The two researchers jointly coded, sorted, and evaluated the remaining free nodes with the three dimensions in mind. A third researcher would join the conversation if there was a disagreement, and the three would ultimately come to an agreement. The advantages of all-girl teams, the problems they experienced, and the measures they took to address those problems were finally grouped together into three categories from which the interview content was compiled. And the frequency was 35 times, with 12 types of free nodes still available. These results are outlined in Table 3 and described in detail in the Results section.

Table 3 Examples of specific coding processes
Full size table

Results

The tendency of girls’ participation in WRO from 2015 to 2019

Girl participants in four categories of WRO finals from 2015 to 2019

As shown in Fig. 1, in the 2015–2019 WRO international finals, the competition category with the highest percentage of girls is Open Category (25% on average), followed by Regular Category (16% on average). ARC and WRO Football both account for an average of 9%. And the proportion of girls entering the Open Category finals is always higher than that of the other three categories (except in 2016). In addition, we can also see from Fig. 1 that compared with the other two categories, the overall fluctuation of Open Category and ARC is larger. The number of girls who entered the Open Category finals increased progressively in 2016–2018, and remained relatively stable in 2019. However, the number of girls entering the finals of ARC has been declining since 2016, and even dropped to 2.0% in 2019. This may be related to the high requirements of this category for participants’ programming ability and on-the-spot reflection, and with the increasing difficulty, the number of girl participants decreases faster and faster.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Girl participants in four categories of WRO finals from 2015 to 2019

Full size image

Girl participants of all age groups in regular category and open category of WRO finals

As shown in Fig. 2, in the final of WRO Regular Category from 2015 to 2019, the number of girls in Elementary School Age group was the highest (accounting for 20.2% on average) in the past years, followed by Junior High School (accounting for 14.5% on average) and Senior High School (accounting for 12.8% on average). Regular Category has clear rules and standard answers, which makes it easier for learners to get started. However, in the finals, with the increase of grade level, the number of girl participants gradually decreased. It is worth noting that in the Open Category finals (see Fig. 3), the number of girls who successfully entered the Senior High School Age group and the Elementary School Age group was relatively large and stable, while the Junior High School group fluctuated obviously (the difference was 34.5–15.9% = 18.6%).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Girl participants of different age groups in Regular Category of WRO finals from 2015 to 2019

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Girl participants of different age groups in Open Category of WRO finals from 2015 to 2019

Full size image

Challenges and opportunities of the all-girl teams attending 2019 WRO International Final

Major advantages of all-girl teams

The interviewees mentioned that the major advantages of all-girl teams were, in the order of frequencies, “communication skills” (frequency = 6), “teamwork” (frequency = 5), “confidence” (frequency = 4), “quick learning” (frequency = 2), “creativity” (frequency = 1) and “smartness” (frequency = 1), as shown in Fig. 4. The researchers observed that the feedback from the three perspectives did not necessarily coincide. First, coaches favoured “communication skills” as the biggest advantage of all-girl teams which referred to the skills of conveying and receiving messages effectively and accurately both with the team members and coaches and others including the judges. Students were more likely to agree that “teamwork” was the biggest advantage of their teams compared with the teams of all-boys and mixed-gender as they believed that the girls understood each other better and they could get on well in their own way. (Like, we have three girls. So you understand our like it’s better than understanding like all boys or whatever. And like we do care every stuff. And we have fun in a girly way. [S4]) Parents gave no opinion in this regard. Second, though both coaches and students proposed “confidence” as one of the major advantages the all-girl teams had, their starting point varied. Students believed that girls were by no means inferior to boys (I think that’s like we are humans, both have mental abilities and we can go into this field and be like really genius and be really good. [S6]). Coaches insisted that girls were more confident than boys in public speaking. (And boys might really have less confidence because maybe they think they will not really answer some kind of questions. That’s why we tried to add more girls as well. [C1]). Third, coaches mentioned “quick learning”, “creativity” and “smartness” as the advantages of all-girl teams based on their experience and observation while students and parents did not.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Advantages of all-girl team in WRO competition from three perspectives (Notes: S: Student; P: Parent; C: Coach.)

Full size image

Major challenges faced by all-girl teams

The interviewees mentioned that the major challenges faced by all-girl teams were, in the order of frequencies, “robot building” (frequency = 4), “time management” (frequency = 3) and “limited mindset” (frequency = 1), as shown in Fig. 5. The researchers analyzed that the three perspectives of respondents held considerably different views in this regard. First, among those interviewees who responded to this question, most coaches chose “robot building” as the biggest challenge faced by all-girl teams as they learned from their experience that boys were better than girls in the areas of mechanical engineering. (Boys are good in mechanical and construction, but girls are not. You Know? [C1]). Only one student agreed with them. (I thought the building is more difficult. [S1]). Second, the two parents expressed the view that “time management” was the single biggest challenge faced by the team for they had been in a hurry to make everything ready for the competition. (It’s the time, the time announcement, the announcement’s late. We received it just three days or four days before the competition. So it was really very tight. [P1]). One student shared the view for a different reason as she was more likely to comment on strict time limit in preparing for the project. (I think that this is time limit or limitation of the time, I think that does have big difference. [S8]) Third, coaches also mentioned “limited mindset” as a big challenge faced by the girls. (Like it’s not the challenge, but it’s like I see how they think outside of the box. Their mindset is still limited. [C5]) though the other two perspectives of interviewees did not share this view. But this challenge is most probably not specific to girls; both genders could have limited mindset. By mentioning that the students have limited mindset, the coach might address the fact that the WRO competitions serve as a good platform for participants all over the world to share ideas, values and viewpoints so that the students can think outside of the box.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Challenges of all-girl team in WRO competition from three perspectives (Notes: S: Student; P: Parent; C: Coach.)

Full size image

Major solutions taken by all-girl teams

The interviewees mentioned that the major solutions were, in the order of frequencies, “support from coach” (frequency = 4), “collaboration” (frequency = 2) and “hard work” (frequency = 2), as shown in Fig. 6. The coaches believed that it was their duty to help students for problem-solving, therefore they were more likely to choose “support from coach” as the key solution, (When there is a problem I should get in. Not anyway to enhance their problem-solving skills. Like there’s a problem, I’m a coach, I’m directly going to solve it. [C]). Students, by contrast, insisted that collaboration among team members was crucial which could help them to overcome any obstacles whatever they were. (Girls group, they think together better, not better than boys. But they think together, so it is better. they can work well better. [S7]). Parents, on the other hand, by observing the efforts their children had taken in preparing for the competition, chose “hard work” as the solution. (Yes, they are working very hard every day. [P1]). One coach shared this view and described the details about the hard work of students. (Maybe one of the amazing experiences that I have saw in them is that when we ask them to do something, or when we ask them to comply to do this thing, in the short span of time, they will really do it. Even though they will not be eating for a meal, they will not be slee** just to really finish. And to really show how their project really works. [C2]).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Ways for all-girl teams to tackle the challenges in WRO competition from three perspectives (Notes: S: Student; P: Parent; C: Coach.)

Full size image

Discussions and conclusions

Challenges and opportunities for girls in robotics

The researchers in this study expanded on earlier research that looked at gender disparity in robotics competitions and specifically investigated the challenges the girls experienced, how they responded to those challenges, and how they differed from their male counterparts.

According to the findings of the qualitative analysis, time management, robot building, and a constrained mindset are among the challenges faced by girls in the WRO. Basically, most coaches thought that their female students were less skilled at making robots, and the parents thought that the teams had a harder problem managing their time. One of the two students who gave their opinions in response to this question agreed with the coaches, while the other agreed with the parents. The result of the robot-building study is consistent with prior research suggesting that boys do better than girls in technical areas (Burns, 2019; Sullivan & Bers, 2013). Time management issues could affect both boys and girls. They might have a hard time adhering to the rigid time constraints of robotics competitions. Girls might find it more difficult to imitate under pressure, as Sanjeev (2013) argued that boys were better at handling stress than girls. Both boys and girls are susceptible to having a narrow mindset in STEM education, but boys report enjoying math more than girls do (Milligan, 2016). Robotics competitions as well-known and influential as the WRO could be eye-openers for the majority of participating students, boys and girls alike.

The study also showed that when girls confront difficulties, they frequently seek support from their coaches. They would also rely on themselves, pushing themselves harder or working together more effectively to overcome the obstacles. This result is also in line with prior research, which contends that peer pressure, parental involvement, and classroom environments all have a positive impact on students’ attitudes and motivation toward robotics (Kaloti-Hallak et al., 2015), as well as how collaboration can spur students’ interest in robotics (Eguchi, 2016).

Grover et al. (2015) argue that girls spend more time learning after school than boys, which may help them catch up in computer science courses, as evidence of the diligence of girls. The benefits of an all-girls team mostly stem from the girls’ emotional qualities, which include their capacity for communication, teamwork, and collaboration. This result is in line with earlier research, which found that girls outperformed boys in the teamwork and communication domains (Ardito et al., 2020), and female leadership is sustained and developed more through successful collaboration and communication (Post, 2015).

Suggestions on promoting girls’ participation in robotics competitions and STEM-related fields

The findings of this study inspire several suggestions for parents, mentors, and coaches to boost female participation and performance in robotics contests and STEM-related disciplines (as shown in Fig. 7). First, additional efforts are required to involve girls in STEM activities and encourage them to explore chances with STEM-related subjects because they tend to lose interest in STEM courses in middle school. The main message is to alter the way STEM is taught and demonstrate to girls the fun and relevance of STEM through activities that involve solving real-world issues. A good choice would be STEM-related organizations or after-school tutoring.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Suggestions on promoting girls’ participation in robotics competitions and STEM-related fields

Full size image

Second, parents, coaches, and mentors need to do a better job of encouraging females to study STEM courses, particularly in middle school. In addition to reassuring girls that they are not inferior to males, educators and coaches should encourage parents to do the same at home by praising girls’ perseverance and efforts. Girls’ interest in STEM fields will be influenced by parental and educational encouragement. More mentoring for girls in STEM fields is reportedly needed in the future, and training programs should emphasize robot building.

Third, girls’ emotional qualities, such as their communication, presentation, and teamwork skills, represent their greatest opportunities. Girls have the potential to perform better in the robotics competitions because they are intended to measure students’ overall strength, including their communication and presenting skills. To encourage more females to participate, the organizers of the competitions need to change the mechanism for increasing exposure for girls, including but not limited to offering girl-specific rewards, scholarships, and training.

Research limitations and future prospects

This study focused on girls’ involvement in the WRO finals (RQ1) and the challenges they faced (RQ2). Although the WRO was the basis for this study, the findings might be applicable to other robotics contests, which have recently grown in importance as areas of study in STEM education.

This study has certain limitations. First, because this study focused on the participation of female students, which entailed gender issues, the research team tried to eliminate subjectivity bias by adopting neutral language during the interview process and co-coding by male and female researchers. However, the researchers were unable to determine if the interviewees—some of them were male coaches—had any possible gender prejudice. Second, the researchers only requested data from 2015 to 2019 for the examination of the percentage of female participants partly resulting from the belief that the WRO competition requirements and categories for these five years were substantially the same. However, the competition categories and requirements of WRO have been revised after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. As a result, the study’s findings might not accurately represent the situation following the pandemic. Third, the statistical results showed that with the passage of time, the girls’ participation may decline, but this study had not conducted further research to verify and explore the reasons behind this, and can only be supplemented by relevant literature.

Qualitative data collection and analysis also had limitations. First, the number of samples interviewed is small. In addition to the objective fact that all-girls teams are relatively rare, we had to consider the time and manpower required for face-to-face interviews, so we did not conduct extensive interviews with all-boys teams and mixed-gender teams. Second, only two fathers were interviewed alongside the coaches and students, making it impossible to adequately represent the perspectives of other parents who were not present. Third, a purposive sampling includes some subjectivity. As the study concentrated on the Open Category where girls had a relatively high level of participation, there was no way to ascertain the opinions of the female finalists in the other three categories. Fourth, it should not be forgotten that the interviewees were required to speak English, and some of them struggled to articulate themselves clearly. This may have an impact on the findings of the qualitative study.

Future research can broaden the interviewee base in terms of both numbers and categories to explore other possible opportunities and challenges that girls may encounter in robotics competitions and STEM education in general. In addition to the participating teams, the research topic may also comprise judges or parents who are not present. Particularly considering the prevalence of virtual online competitions, the study design and methodology of future research can be more diverse. For example, they might combine quantitative questionnaire and qualitative interview, self-reported data, and multi-modal learning analysis. Future research might also look at women’s participation in STEM disciplines from a variety of angles and topics, as well as how their traits reflect and enhance their skills.