As concerns mount about the shortage of students entering science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers, policy makers throughout the United States are contemplating strategies to maintain and enhance our nation's economic vitality and international competitiveness. Within this policy and program environment, researchers have focused considerable attention on improving STEM education at different stages of the educational pipeline, yet we lack evidence on how resources from one educational setting may influence outcomes in a successive educational setting.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus
The purpose of the study is to examine individual- and school-level factors that influence students’ pathways to the STEM fields during college. Focusing on the importance of high school-to-college linkages, our research questions address the individual and institutional factors that affect students’ likelihoods of majoring in a STEM field in college.
Research Design
The study is based on data collected through the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002, a nationally representative survey of high school sophomores who were followed through high school and into college. Students who were enrolled in a four-year institution at the end of 2006 and had declared a major were included in the analytic sample.
Analysis
In addition to performing descriptive and factor analyses, we used cross-classified hierarchical general linear modeling to examine students’ backgrounds, aptitudes, attitudes, dispositions, and experiences in relation to majoring in a STEM field, as well as institutional factors that constitute students’ secondary and postsecondary environments.
Findings/Conclusions
Findings from the study revealed significant effects in relation to race, academic preparation, attitudes and dispositions toward math and science, college choice considerations, and postsecondary experiences. Although no institutional effects were uncovered at the high school level, both postsecondary sector and selectivity significantly influenced propensities toward majoring in a STEM discipline. The study concludes with several policy recommendations related to K–16 collaborations, dual-enrollment programs, and developmental considerations for teachers and counselors working with high school students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderK. L., & EcklandB. K. (1977). High school context and college selectivity: Institutional constraints in educational stratification. Social Forces, 56, 166–188.
2.
AndersonE., & KimD. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science and technology. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
3.
AstinA. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
BrenemanD. W. (1976). The Ph.D. production process. In FromkinJ. T., JamisonD. T., & RadnerR. (Eds.), Education as an industry (pp. 3–52). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
5.
BritnerS. L. (2008). Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 955–970.
6.
ChenX., & WekoT. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education (NCES, 2009-161). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009161.pdf
7.
ClotfelterC. T., EhrenbergR. G., GetzM. G., & SiegfriedJ. J. (Eds.) (1991). Economic challenges in higher education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
CobleC., & AllenM. (2005). Keeping America competitive: Five strategies to improve mathematics and science education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/62/19/6219.pdf
9.
ColemanJ. S., CampbellE. Q., HobsonC. J., McPartlandJ., MoodA., WeinfeldF. D. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (OE-38001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Office of Education.
10.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
11.
CrispG., NoraA., & TaggartA. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 924–942.
12.
DowdA. C., MalcomL. E., & BensimonE. M. (2009). Benchmarking the success of Latina and Latino students in STEM to achieve national graduation goals.Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Retrieved from http://cue.usc.edu/news/NSF-Report.pdf
13.
EcclesJ. S. (1987). Gender roles and women's achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 62–72.
14.
EhrenbergR. G., JakubsenG. H., GroenJ. A., SoE., & PriceJ. (2007). Inside the black box of doctoral education: What program characteristics influence doctoral students’ attrition and graduate probabilities?Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 134–150.
15.
EngbergM. E., & WolniakG. C. (2010). Examining the effects of high school contexts on postsecondary enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 51(3), 132–153.
16.
FeldhusenJ. F., & JarwanF. (1995). Predictors of academic success at state-supported residential schools for mathematics and science: A validity study. Education and Psychological Measurement, 55, 505–512.
17.
FenskeR. H., PorterJ. D., & DuBrockC. P. (2000). Tracking financial aid and persistence of women, minority, and needy students in science, engineering, and mathematics. Research in Higher Education, 41, 67–94.
18.
FreehillL. M. (1997). Education and occupational sex segregation: The decision to major in engineering. Sociological Quarterly, 38, 225–249.
19.
George-JacksonC. E., KienzlG. S., & TrentW. T. (2008, November). Underrepresented students entering STEM fields. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Jacksonville, FL.
20.
GriffithA. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters?Economics of Education Review, 29, 911–922.
21.
HackettG., & BetzN. E. (1989). Exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261–273.
22.
HagedornL. S., NoraA., & PascarellaE. T. (1996). Preoccupational segregation among first-year college students: An application of the Duncan dissimilarity index. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 425–437.
23.
HansonS. L. (2004). African American women in science: Experiences from high school through the post-secondary years and beyond. National Women's Study Association Journal, 16, 96–115.
HiltonT. L., & LeeV. E. (1988). Student interest and persistence in science: Changes in the education pipeline in the last decade. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 510–526.
26.
HollandJ. L. (1985). Making vocational choices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.
HuangG., TaddeseN., & WalterE. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in college science and engineering education (NCES 2000-601). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
KarpM. M., CalcagnoJ. C., HughesK. L., JeongD. W., & BaileyT. R. (2007). The post-secondary achievement of participants in dual enrollment: An analysis of student outcomes in two states.St. Paul, MN: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education.
30.
KienzlG. S., George-JacksonC. E., & TrentW. (2009, April). Underrepresented students entering STEM fields. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Diego, CA.
31.
LeeJ. D. (2002). More than ability: Gender and personal relationships influence science and technology involvement. Sociology of Education, 75, 349–373.
32.
LentR. W., SheuH., SingleyD., SchmidtJ. A., SchmidtL. C., & GlosterC. S. (2008). Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome expectations, interests, and major choice goals in engineering students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 328–335.
33.
LeslieL. L., McClureG. T., & OaxacaR. L. (1998). Women and minorities in science and engineering: A life sequence analysis. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 239–276.
34.
LevineJ., & WyckoffJ. (1991). Predicting persistence and success in baccalaureate engineering. Education, 111, 461–468.
35.
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
MapleS. A., & StageF. K. (1991). Influences on the choice of math/science major by gender and ethnicity. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 37–60.
37.
McDonoughP. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
OakesJ. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153–222.
PaulsenM. B., & St. JohnE. P. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 189–236.
42.
PernaL. W., Rowan-KenyonH. T., ThomasS. L., BellA., AndersonR., & LiC. (2008). The role of college counseling in shaping college opportunity: Variations across high schools. Review of Higher Education, 31, 131–159.
43.
PernaL. W., & TitusM. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 486–518.
44.
PetersonT. (1985). A comment on presenting results from logit and probit models. American Sociological Review, 50, 130–131.
45.
PorterS. R., & UmbachP. D. (2006). College major choice: An analysis of person-environment fit. Research in Higher Education, 47, 429–449.
46.
RaskK. (2010). Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences. Economics of Education Review, 29, 892–900.
47.
RaudenbushS., & BrykA. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
RichardsonN., BernsB. B., SandlerJ. O., & MarcoL. (2009). Implementation strategies for improving STEM education and workforce development in Massachusetts: A survey of key policy makers. Newton, MA: Center for Science Education, Education Development Center.
49.
SaxL. J. (2000). Undergraduate science majors: Gender differences in who goes to graduate school. Review of Higher Education, 24, 153–172.
50.
SaxL. J., & BryantA. N. (2006). The impact of college on sex-atypical career choices of men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 52–63.
51.
SmartJ. C. (1988). College influences on graduates’ income levels. Research in Higher Education, 29, 41–59.
52.
SmartJ. C., FeldmanK. A., & EthingtonC. A. (2000). Academic disciples: Holland's theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
53.
SongC., & GlickJ. E. (2004). College attendance and choice of college majors among Asian-American students. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1401–1421.
54.
St. JohnE., AskerE., & HuS. (2001). The role of finances in student choice: A review of theory and research. In PaulsenM. & SmartJ. (Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp. 419–438). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
55.
SubotnikR. T., TaiR. H., RickoffR., & AlmarodeJ. (2010). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 years?Roeper Review, 32, 7–16.
56.
TaiR. H., LiuC. Q., MalteseA. V., & FanX. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.
57.
ThomasJ., & WilliamsC. (2010). The history of specialized STEM schools and the formation and role of the NCSSSMST. Roeper Review, 32, 17–24.
58.
Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. (2008). STEM professions: Opportunities and challenges for Latinos in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Claremont, CA: Author.
59.
TrentW. T., NicholsonD. O., & McKillipM. M. (2006). GMS effect on diversifying math, science, computer science and engineering. A report to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
60.
TrustyJ. (2002). Effects of high school course-taking and other variables on choice of science and mathematics college majors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 464–474.
61.
WebbR. M., LubinskiD., & BenbowC. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785–794.
