ABSTRACT
Building on Social Cognitive Career Theory and Xueli Wang's conceptual model of STEM choice, this study advances and tests a model seeking to understand STEM readiness and intention to pursue STEM fields among a representative national sample of 9th grade students drawn from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009. Structural equation model results suggest several contextual influences (e.g., personal characteristics) and social-cognitive variables (e.g., math and science self-efficacy) contributing to building STEM readiness and students’ intention to major in STEM during high school. In general, STEM readiness is impacted directly by SES, math ability, parental involvement, math self-efficacy, science self-efficacy, math interest, and science interest. Intention to major in STEM is directly impacted by STEM readiness, as well as high school students’ interest in math and interest in science. Overall, this study expands our knowledge of the process that leads high school students to become prepared for and aspire to pursue majors in STEM.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. While Moakler and Kim (Citation2014) appraised self-efficacy through two measures of self-confidence (one in mathematics ability and one in academic ability), the measure of self-efficacy in their study did not include indicators of self-efficacy in science content. The authors acknowledge the absence of science self-efficacy as a notable limitation in their study.
2. In the base year of 2009, approximately 23,000 9th graders were surveyed, along with their parents, counselors, and school administrators, from more than 900 schools. The first follow up occurred in 2012, when the students were in 11th grade, and the second follow-up occurred in 2013, when the students were projected to have graduated from high school. High school transcript data were also collected from 2013 to 2014.
3. These data are currently being processed by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics and are not yet publicly available.
4. This also includes the inability to develop specific survey questions and a lack of control in the timing of the survey distribution.