This study investigated why university students choose to major in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine/health (STEM(M)) disciplines, and how their study and career-related confidence compares with that of their peers. The study engaged 12,576 students enrolled at Australian universities. The findings suggest that STEM(M) students’ career decision making is guided by their interest in the subject and their intentions to help people. Within the STEM(M) cohort, students in medicine and health were more confident in their career decision making than either their STEM or non-STEM(M) peers. Of interest, they were less aware of alternative career pathways and less prepared to reorient their careers should this be necessary. Female students reported greater confidence than male students in their career decision making, career identity, and career commitment. Implications include the need for career narratives beyond the STEM industries and for career development initiatives that are mindful of disciplinary and gendered differences.
AlicJ. A. (2018).
What we mean when we talk about workforce skills. Issues in Science and Technology,
34, 30–36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26594262.
2.
AlvessonM.SköldbergK. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. 2nd ed.
Sage Publications.
3.
ArcherL.DeWittJ.DillonJ. (2014).
It didn’t really change my opinion”: Exploring what works, what doesn’t and why in a school science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers intervention. Research in Science & Technological Education,
32, 35–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.
4.
AthanasouJ. A. (2011).
Advantages and disadvantages of the different inventoried approaches to assessing career interests. Australian Journal of Career Development,
20, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841621102000109.
AzizzadehA.McCollumC.MillerC. C.HollidayK. M.ShilstoneH. C.LucciA. (2003).
Factors influencing career choice among medical students interested in surgery. Current Surgery,
60, 210–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7944(02)007
Bennett, D., & Ananthram, S. (in press). Development, validation and deployment of the EmployABILITY scale. Studies in Higher Education, accepted February 2021.
11.
BennettD.MaleS. (2017).
An Australian study of possible selves perceived by undergraduate engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education,
42, 603–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1208149
12.
BennettD.RobertsL.CreaghC. (2016).
Exploring possible selves in a first-year physics education class: Engaging students by establishing relevance. Physical Review Physics Education Research,
12. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010120
BlackleyS.SheffieldR. (2015, November). Re-imagining the ‘E' in STEM education [paper presentation]. Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference, University of Notre Dame, Perth, Australia.
15.
BrownE. R.ThomanD. B.SmithJ. L.DiekmanA. B. (2015).
Closing the communal gap: The importance of communal affordances in science career motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
45, 662–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-017-9355-0
CameronR. (2010).
Is mixed methods research used in Australian career development research?Australian Journal of Career Development,
19, 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841621001900308
18.
CamilliG.HiraR. (2019).
STEM workforce: STEM education and the post-scientific society. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
28, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9759-8
19.
CannadyM. A.GreenwaldE.HarrisK. N. (2014).
Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce?Science Education,
98, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21108
FouadN. A.SantanaM. C. (2017).
SCCT and underrepresented populations in STEM fields: Moving the needle. Journal of Career Assessment,
25, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716658324.
24.
HardinE. E.LonghurstM. O. (2016).
Understanding the gender gap: Social cognitive changes during an introductory STEM course. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
63, 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000119
KurbanoğluN. İ.ArslanS. (2015).
High school students’ educational and career interest (science–technology–mathematics) and career adaptabilities. Australian Journal of Career Development,
24, 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416215594633
28.
LentR. W.Hung-BinS.ClayS. G.WilkinsG. (2010).
Longitudinal test of the social cognitive model of choice in engineering students at historically black universities. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
76, 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.09.002
29.
LentR. W.EzeoforI.MorrisonA.PennL. T.IrelandG. W. (2016).
Applying the social cognitive model of career self-management to career exploration and decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
93, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.12.007
30.
LiaoH. Y.ArmstrongP. I.RoundsJ. (2008).
Development and initial validation of public domain basic interest markers. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
73, 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.12.002
31.
LiuY.Shi-JerL.Ru-ChuS. (2014).
The investigation of STEM self-efficacy and professional commitment to engineering among female high school students. South African Journal of Education,
34, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15700/201412071216
32.
LyonsT.QuinnF.WilsonS. (2016). Girls thriving in geek courses [Paper presentation]. International STEM Education Research Conference, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
MalteseA.CooperC. (2017).
STEM pathways: Do men and women differ in why they enter and exit?AERA Open,
3, 233285841772727–233285841772716. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417727276
36.
Moss-RacusinC. A.SanzariC.CaluoriN.RabascoH. (2018).
Gender bias produces gender gaps in STEM engagement. Sex Roles,
79, 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0902-z
37.
MurphyS.MacDonaldA.DanaiaL.WangC. (2019).
An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education,
17, 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318774190
38.
NewhouseC. P. (2017).
STEM the boredom: Engage students in the Australian curriculum using ICT with problem-based learning and assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
26, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9650-4
39.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2015). Australia’s STEM workforce: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.
Commonwealth of Australia.
40.
PaytonA.KnightG. (2018). Skills for a global future. 27th National VET Research Conference, Sydney. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED586417
SheffieldR.KoulR.BlackleyS.FitrianiE.RahmawatiY.ResekD. (2018).
Transnational examination of STEM education. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education,
26, 67–80.
43.
SiekmannG. (2016). What is STEM? The need for unpacking its definitions and applications.
National Centre for Vocational Education Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570651
WeldeA. M.BernesK. B.GunnT. M.RossS. A. (2015).
Integrated career education in senior high: Intern teacher and student recommendations. Australian Journal of Career Development,
24, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416215575163
48.
WilkinsonR. (2011). Changing interactional behaviour: Using conversation analysis in intervention programmes for aphasic conversation. In AntakiC. (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Changing institutional practices (pp. 32–53).
Palgrave Macmillan.
