More Like this

1. Longitudinal associations between parent degree/occupation, parent support, and adolescent motivational beliefs in STEM

   https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12059  

   Hsieh, Ta‐Yang ; Simpkins, Sandra D. ( July 2022 , Journal of Adolescence)

   Introduction The United States struggles with racial/ethnic disparities in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) degrees and occupations. According to situated expectancy-value theory, the experience and knowledge parents gain through STEM degrees and occupations shape the STEM support they provide and relatedly their adolescents' STEM motivational beliefs. Methods We analyzed data from the High School Longitudinal Study (N = 14,000; 50% female; Mage = 14 years old at 9th grade), which is a recent U.S. data set that surveyed a nationally representative sample of adolescents. Results and Conclusions Results showed that parent STEM support in 9th grade and adolescent STEM motivational beliefs in 11th grade were lower in families where parents did not have a STEM degree/occupation than in families where at least one parent had a STEM degree/occupation. Our within-group analyses suggested that parents' STEM support was generally positively related to adolescents' STEM motivational beliefs among families where parents did not have a STEM degree/occupation for all racial/ethnic groups except Black adolescents. However, these relations were not significant among adolescents who had a parent STEM degree/occupation. Furthermore, although Asian and White adolescents' parents were more likely to hold a STEM degree/occupation than Latina/o and Black adolescents' parents, the associations between parent STEM support and adolescents' STEM motivational beliefs emerged for Asian, Latina/o, and White adolescents. 

   more » « less
2. Evaluation of Summer Camp Recruitment Methods and Campers’ Perceptions of Engineering (Evaluation, Diversity)

   Fleming, Gabriella Coloyan ; Fernandez, Kiersten Elyse ; Julien, Christine ; Mastronardi, Marialice ( June 2023 , 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   Program leaders put a tremendous amount of thought into how they recruit students for engineering summer camps. Recruitment methods can include information sessions, established partnerships with school districts, and teacher or school counselor nominations of students. This study seeks to assess if the methods used to recruit students broaden participation or have any impact on students’ perceptions of engineering. Two identical week-long summer camps were hosted by the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) in the summer of 2022. Camps were entirely free for all campers. A specific goal of the camp was to promote engineering as a career pathway for students from groups that have been historically excluded from STEM majors. Campers were rising 8th and 9th grade students in two cities near UT Austin; this age was intentionally identified as students who have sufficient STEM backgrounds to engage in meaningful engineering design challenges, and who are also at a critical inflection point with respect to decisions that put them on a trajectory to study engineering in college. Summer camp topics ranged from additive manufacturing to the chemical properties of water proofing, and students did activities such as constructing a prosthetic limb from recovered materials or designing an electronic dance game pad. In one camp session, students primarily found out about the camp by being nominated by counselors at their schools, with an intentional focus on recruiting students who might not otherwise be exposed to engineering. In the other camp session, parents signed up campers after hearing about the camp via information sent through the schools. All students who applied were accepted to the camps. Identical pre- and post-camp surveys asked campers questions about their knowledge of what engineers do, their interest in math and science, and what factors are important to them when choosing a career. Survey analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences in answers to questions between the groups in the pre-camp surveys, but post-camp surveys show that these differences disappeared after participating in the summer camp. Students whose parents directly enrolled them in the camp had higher pre-camp interest in science and technology; thus, counselor nominations may be a method to recruit students who might not have been interested in engineering had they not attended the camp. Additionally, prior to participating, campers recruited via counselor nominations had a narrower view of what engineers do than the parent-enrolled campers, but after camp the two groups had similar perceptions of what engineers do. The results of this study confirm literature findings regarding the importance of exposing young learners to engineering as a profession and broaden their views of opportunities in this field. The recruitment methods used for these camps show that nomination-based recruitment methods have the potential for greater impact on changing students’ engineering trajectories. 

   more » « less
3. The Patterns of Adolescents’ Math and Science Motivational Beliefs: Examining Within–Racial/Ethnic Group Changes and Their Relations to STEM Outcomes

   https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221083673  

   Hsieh, Ta-yang ; Simpkins, Sandra D. ( January 2022 , AERA Open)

   The racial/ethnic disparities and average declines in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) motivation during adolescence are worrisome. Although STEM motivational beliefs are theorized to function in conjunction with one another, the unique patterns and how they change over time for different racial/ethnic groups remain understudied. Using data from the High School Longitudinal Study ( N = 18,260), we identified four and five patterns of math and science motivational beliefs in 9th and 11th grade, respectively, and examined their prevalence among Asian, Black, Latina/o, White, and Multiracial adolescents. We found patterns with overall high/low beliefs, patterns with varying levels of motivational beliefs, and patterns characterized by domain differentiation. Then, we charted the stability and changes in those patterns from 9th to 11th grade for each racial/ethnic group and how the patterns at 11th grade were associated with adolescents’ STEM career expectations and high school math and science grade point averages. 

   more » « less
4. Defining First-generation and Low-income Students in Engineering: An Exploration

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34373  

   Atwood, Sara A ; Gilmartin, Shannon K ; Harris, Angela ; Sheppard, Sheri ( January 2020 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   First-generation (FG) and/or low-income (LI) engineering student populations are of particular interest in engineering education. However, these populations are not defined in a consistent manner across the literature or amongst stakeholders. The intersectional identities of these groups have also not been fully explored in most quantitative-based engineering education research. This research paper aims to answer the following three research questions: (RQ1) How do students’ demographic characteristics and college experiences differ depending on levels of parent educational attainment (which forms the basis of first-generation definitions) and family income? (RQ2) How do ‘first-generation’ and ‘low-income’ definitions impact results comparing to their continuing-generation and higher-income peers? (RQ3) How does considering first-generation and low-income identities through an intersectional lens deepen insight into the experiences of first-generation and low-income groups? Data were drawn from a nationally representative survey of engineering juniors and seniors (n = 6197 from 27 U.S. institutions). Statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate respondent differences in demographics (underrepresented racial/ethnic minority (URM), women, URM women), college experiences (internships/co-ops, having a job, conducting research, and study abroad), and engineering task self-efficacy (ETSE), based on various definitions of ‘first generation’ and ‘low income’ depending on levels of parental educational attainment and self-reported family income. Our results indicate that categorizing a first-generation student as someone whose parents have less than an associate’s degree versus less than a bachelor’s degree may lead to different understandings of their experiences (RQ1). For example, the proportion of URM students is higher among those whose parents have less than an associate’s degree than among their “associate’s degree or more” peers (26% vs 11.9%). However, differences in college experiences are most pronounced among students whose parents have less than a bachelor’s degree compared with their “bachelor’s degree or more” peers: having a job to help pay for college (55.4% vs 47.3%), research with faculty (22.7% vs 35.0%), and study abroad (9.0% vs 17.3%). With respect to differences by income levels, respondents are statistically different across income groups, with fewer URM students as family income level increases. As family income level increases, there are more women in aggregate, but fewer URM women. College experiences are different for the middle income or higher group (internship 48.4% low and lower-middle income vs 59.0% middle income or higher; study abroad 11.2% vs 16.4%; job 58.6% vs 46.8%). Despite these differences in demographic characteristics and college experiences depending on parental educational attainment and family income, our dataset indicates that the definition does not change the statistical significance when comparing between first-generation students and students who were continuing-generation by any definition (RQ2). First-generation and low-income statuses are often used as proxies for one another, and in this dataset, are highly correlated. However, there are unique patterns at the intersection of these two identities. For the purpose of our RQ3 analysis, we define ‘first-generation’ as students whose parents earned less than a bachelor’s degree and ‘low-income’ as low or lower-middle income. In this sample, 68 percent of students were neither FG nor LI while 11 percent were both (FG&LI). On no measure of demographics or college experience is the FG&LI group statistically similar to the advantaged group. Low-income students had the highest participation in working to pay for college, regardless of parental education, while first-generation students had the lower internship participation than low-income students. Furthermore, being FG&LI is associated with lower ETSE compared with all other groups. These results suggest that care is required when applying the labels “first-generation” and/or “low-income” when considering these groups in developing institutional support programs, in engineering education research, and in educational policy. Moreover, by considering first-generation and low-income students with an intersectional lens, we gain deeper insight into engineering student populations that may reveal potential opportunities and barriers to educational resources and experiences that are an important part of preparation for an engineering career. 

   more » « less
5. What counts as STEM , and does it matter?

   https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12639  

   Adler, Rebecca M. ; Xu, Mingkai ; Rittle‐Johnson, Bethany ( October 2023 , British Journal of Educational Psychology)

   To accurately measure students' science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) career interest, researchers must get inside the ‘black box’ to understand students' conceptualizations of STEM careers.

   The aim of Study 1 was to explore whether students' conceptualizations of STEM included medical careers. The aim of Study 2 was to explore whether predictors of STEM career interest (e.g., gender and motivation) varied by STEM definition (inclusion/exclusion of medical careers).

   In Study 1, the sample was US college students (N = 125) who were mostly White (80%). In Study 2, the sample was US 10th‐grade high school students (N = 455) who were mostly Black (79%).

   In Study 1, students completed an online questionnaire. In Study 2, students completed various measures of math achievement, motivation (science and math expectancies of success, interest and importance value) and career interest with an importance.

   In Study 1, medical careers were less often classified as STEM careers than traditional STEM careers, but more often classified as STEM than non‐STEM careers. In Study 2, science importance value was the only motivational predictor of students' STEM+Medicine career interest, and no motivation constructs predicted traditional STEM career interest. Boys expressed greater interest in traditional STEM careers, while girls expressed greater interest in STEM+Medicine careers.

   Students' conceptualizations of STEM are not binary. Thus, we recommend researchers are explicit about their definition of STEM with study participants, in their coding and in their publications.

    

   more » « less