The Relationships among High School STEM Learning Experiences and Students’ Intent to Declare and Declaration of a STEM Major in College

Abstract

Background/Context

Schools are integral to augmenting and diversifying the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. This is because K–12 schools can inspire and reinforce students’ interest in STEM, in addition to academically preparing them to pursue a STEM career. Previous literature emphasizes the importance of high-quality STEM academic preparation in high school and the role of informal and formal exposure to STEM as important influences on students’ chances of following a STEM career. Interestingly, although many students decide to major in STEM fields while they are in high school, the majority of the extant literature about why students choose STEM majors primarily focuses on students’ experiences during the college years.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

Through our research, we seek to investigate how learning experiences of inspiration/reinforcement/preparation toward STEM that students have during high school can help explain the stark differences in STEM involvement by gender and ethnicity. We first investigate the importance of high school inspirational/ reinforcing/ preparatory experiences for students’ intent to major in STEM while in high school. We then see how they relate to students’ actual choice of a STEM major. We do this focusing on gender and racial/ethnic differences in outcomes. Specifically, we analyze the impact of the timing of high school STEM courses (algebra, biology, and physics), the quantity of STEM-related classes, and the quality of these courses on students’ decision to pursue a college STEM major.

Research Design

This is an analysis of quantitative data gathered about members of North Carolina's 2004 high school graduating class who also matriculated to one of the 16 campuses of the University of North Carolina system. Our research developed in two different stages. In the first stage, we utilize multilevel binomial models to examine students’ intent to declare a STEM major in their senior year of high school. In the second stage, we employ multilevel multinomial models to analyze chances of declaring a STEM major during the years 2005–2011, when students are in college.

Findings/Results

Findings suggest that STEM experiences of inspiration/reinforcement/ preparation during high school interact with demographic variables to moderate students’ interest in STEM. Taking physics and intending to major in STEM during high school are the variables most closely associated with students’ choice of STEM as a major. In addition, taking physics is especially important for young women's odds of declaration of STEM.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Findings suggest several policy recommendations: Provide a variety of high school learning STEM experiences that will link and augment students’ interest in STEM; change the way physics is presented to female students; utilizing curricula and pedagogy that focus on ways that physics is personally relevant may increase the number of young women who take the course in high school; increase the quality of the STEM-related academic preparation of students; particular attention should be given to underrepresented subgroups of students; increase the offering of math and science-focused program at schools; and increase the availability of more STEM-related co- and extracurricular experiences available to youth.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACT. (2006). Developing the STEM education pipeline. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Astin

A. W.

(1982). Minorities in American higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Atwater

M. M.

, Colson

, & Simpson

R. D.

(1999). Influences of a university summer residential program on high school students' commitment to the sciences and higher education. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5(2), 155–173.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Berryman

S.E.

(1983). Who will do science? Trends, and their cause in minority and female representation among holders of advanced degrees in science and mathematics. New York, NY: Rockefeller Foundation.

Bettinger

, & Long

. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on women students. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 95(2), 152–157.

Byars-Winston

, Estrada

, & Howard

(2008). Increasing STEM retention for underrepresented students: Factors that matter. Madison, WI: Center for Education and Work.

Carbonaro

(2005). Tracking, student effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 78(1), 27–49.

Carrell

S. E.

, Page

M. E.

, & West

J. E.

(2010). Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1101–1144.

10.

Crisp

, Nora

, & Taggart

(2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 924–942.

11.

Davenport

E. C.

Jr. , Davison

M. L.

, Kuang

, Ding

, Kim

, & Kwak

(1998). High school mathematics course taking by gender and ethnicity. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 497–514.

12.

Engberg

, & Wolniak

(2013). College student pathways to the STEM disciplines. Teachers College Record, 15(1), 1–27.

13.

Fryer

R. G.

, & Levitt

S. D.

(2010). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(2), 210–240.

14.

Gibson

, & Chase

(2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693–705.

15.

Good

, Aronson

, & Harder

J. A.

(2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women's achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 17–28.

16.

Griffith

A. L.

(2010). Persistence of women and minorities in stem field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911–922.

17.

Hoepner

C. C.

(2010). Advanced placement math and science courses: Influential factors and predictors for success in college stem majors (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3437520)

18.

Hoffmann

, & Oreopoulos

(2007). A professor like me: The influence of instructor gender on college achievement(NBER Working Paper No. 13182). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

19.

Howe

(2009, November). Tracking students' knowledge of and interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Paper presented at the Evaluation 2009 Conference, Orlando, FL.

20.

Knox

K. L.

, Moynihan

J. A.

, & Markowitz

D. G.

(2003). Evaluation of short-term impact of a high school summer science program on students' perceived knowledge and skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 471–478.

21.

Kokkelenberg

E. C.

, & Sinha

(2010). Who succeeds in stem studies? An analysis of Binghamton University undergraduate students. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 935–946.

22.

Krapp

, Hidi

, & Renninger

K. A.

(1992). Interest, learning, and development. In Renninger

K. A.

, Hidi

, & Krapp

(Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

23.

Laird

, Alt

, & Wu

(2009). Stem coursetaking among high school graduates, 1990-2005. MPR research brief, MPR Inc.

24.

Lee

J. D.

(1998). Which kids can become scientists? Effects of gender, self-concepts, and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(3), 199–219.

25.

Lee

, & Judy

(2011). Choosing a stem path: Course-sequencing in high school and postsecondary outcomes. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Education Effectiveness, Washington, DC. Abstract retrieved from https://www.sree.org/conferences/2011f/program/downloads/abstracts/315.pdf

26.

Lent

R. W.

, Brown

S. D.

, & Hackett

(1994). Toward a unified social cognitive theory of career/academic interest, choice, and performance [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

27.

Lucas

S. R.

(1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

28.

Maltese

A. V.

, & Tai

R. H.

(2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 5, 877–907.

29.

Mickelson

R. A.

(2001). Subverting Swann: First- and second- generation segregation in Charlotte, North Carolina. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 215–252.

30.

Mickelson

R. A.

(2007, September/October). The social science evidence on the effects of diversity in K-12 schools. Poverty and Race, 12–14.

31.

Murphy

, & Whitelegg

(2006). Girls in the physics classroom: A review of the research into the participation of girls in physics. Institute of Physics Report. Retrieved from https://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/review/file_41599.pdf

32.

National Science Foundation. (2005). Pathways to STEM careers: Preparing the STEM workforce of the 21st century. Arlington, VA: Author.

33.

Newmark

, & Gardecki

(1998). Women helping women? Journal of Human Resources, 33(1), 220–246.

34.

Newton

X. A.

, Torres

, & Rivero

(2011). Making the connection: Timing of algebra and future college STEM participation. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 17(2), 111–128.

35.

Oakes

(2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

36.

Obama

(2009, April). National Academy of Sciences speech. Presented at the National Academy of Sciences annual meeting, Washington, DC.

37.

OECD. (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en

38.

Penner

A. M.

, & Paret

(2008). Gender differences in mathematics achievement: Exploring the early years and the extremes. Social Science Research, 37(1), 239–253.

39.

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010, September). Prepare and inspire: K-12 science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education for America's future. Washington, DC: Author.

40.

Price

(2010). The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 901–910.

41.

Qian

, Zafar

, & Xie

(2010). Do female faculty influence female students' choice of college major, and why? Working paper, Northwestern University.

42.

Riegle-Crumb

, & Grodsky

(2010). Racial-ethnic differences at the intersection of math course-taking and achievement. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 248–270.

43.

Riegle-Crumb

, King

, Grodsky

, & Muller

(2012). The more things change, the more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry to STEM college majors over time. American Education Research Journal, 20(10), 1–26.

44.

Robst

, Keil

, & Russo

(1998). The effect of gender composition of faculty on student retention. Economics of Education Review, 17(4), 429–439.

45.

Rothstein

D. S.

(1995). Do female faculty influence female students educational and labor market attainments? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 515–530.

46.

Sadler

, Sonnert

, Hazari

, & Tai

(2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Educational Science, 96(3), 411–427.

47.

Schneider

, Swanson

C. B.

, & Riegle-Crumb

(1998). Opportunities for learning: Course sequences and positional advantages. Social Psychology of Education, 2, 25–53.

48.

Seymour

, & Hewitt

(1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

49.

Stadler

, Duit

, & Benke

(2000) Do boys and girls understand physics differently? Physics Education, 35, 417–422.

50.

Stevens

, Wang

, Olivarez

, & Hamman

(2007). Use of self-perspectives and their sources to predict the mathematics enrollment intentions of girls and boys. Sex Roles, 56(5–6), 351–363.

51.

Tyson

, Lee

, Borman

K. M.

, & Hanson

M. A.

(2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 243–270.

52.

Wang

(2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121.