Abstract
This study investigates factors that influenced the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subject enrolment decisions of Year 12 students in Australia. Structural equation modelling (SEM) is used to develop a model using Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) data with participating students (N = 7442) from 356 schools. An adapted version of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), a behavioural prediction model, is used as the guiding conceptual framework. Students’ demographic background, attitudes towards science and achievement in science and mathematics at age 15 are used as predictors for subsequent enrolment in STEM subjects in Year 12. Gender, socio-economic status (SES) and immigrant status (native vs. non-native) are shown to be contributing factors. The personal value of science, enjoyment of science, self-concept in science and achievement (mathematics and science) are mediating factors in the model. These findings provide schools, policymakers and educational advisors with a greater understanding of the factors that influence Australian students’ decisions of whether to enrol in a STEM subject at Year 12. Evidence provided allows key stakeholders to take a more targeted approach to enhance STEM participation for students from varying demographic backgrounds.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The lists of included and excluded subjects that were used to create the outcome variable are available on request from the corresponding author.
References
Agresti, A. (2003). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Ainley, J., Kos, J., & Nicholas, M. (2008). Participation in science, mathematics and technology in australian education. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.
Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518640.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). “Balancing acts”: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21031.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.748676.
Atweh, B., Taylor, S., & Singh, P. (2005). School curriculum as cultural commodity in the construction of young people’s post-school aspirations. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, University of Western Sydney, Parramatta.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barrington, F., & Brown, P. (2005). Comparison of year 12 pre-tertiary mathematics subjects in Australia 2004–2005. Melbourne, Australia: International Centre of Excellence for Education in Mathematics, Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute.
Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students’ attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975–1998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802425581.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072.
Broadley, K. (2015). Entrenched gendered pathways in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Engaging girls through collaborative career development. Australian Journal of Career Development, 24(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416214559548.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). The mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Clyne, R. J. (2014). The factors influencing secondary school girls' mathematics subject selections. (Master's thesis). The University of Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11343/42253
Cole, M. (2013). Literature review update: Student identity in relation to science, technology, engineering and mathematics subject choices and career aspirations. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council of Learned Academies.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender–science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16(4), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8.
Daly, P., & Ainley, J. (1999). Student participation in mathematics courses in Australian secondary schools. The Irish Journal of Education, 30, 77–95.
De Loof, H., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). Teachers' motivating style and students' engagement and motivation in STEM. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
Deloitte. (2012). Measuring the economic benefits of mathematical science research in the UK. Retrieved from https://epsrc.ukri.org/newsevents/pubs/deloitte-measuring-the-economic-benefits-of-mathematical-science-research-in-the-uk/.
Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. (2011). A science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills strategy for South Australia. Adelaide, Australia: Government of South Australia.
Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. (2014). Investing in science: An action plan for prosperity through science, research and innovation. Adelaide, Australia: Government of South Australia.
Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do ith my life?: Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368.
Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313480694.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology press (Taylor and Francis).
Francis, B., Archer, L., Moote, J., de Witt, J., & Yeomans, L. (2017). Femininity, science, and the denigration of the girly girl. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(8), 1097–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1253455.
Fullarton, S., & Ainley, J. (2000). Subject choice by students in Year 12 in Australian secondary schools (LSAY Research Report No. 15). Melbourne, Australia: ACER.
Fullarton, S., Walker, M., Ainley, J. & Hillman, K. (2003). Patterns of participation in Year 12 (LSAY Research Report No. 33). Melbourne, Australia: ACER.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gill, T., & Bell, J. F. (2013). What factors determine the uptake of a-level physics? International Journal of Science Education, 35(5), 753–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.577843.
Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., Fray, L., McElduff, P., Weaver, N., & Wallington, C. (2017). Unpacking the career aspirations of Australian school students: Towards an evidence base for university equity initiatives in schools. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(7), 1383–1400. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1325847.
Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8(3), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9.
Hassan, G. (2008). Attitudes toward science among Australian tertiary and secondary school students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140802034762.
Henriksen, E. K., Dillon, J., & Ryder, J. (2015). Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Hobbs, L., Jakab, C., Millar, V., Prain, V., Redman, C., Speldewinde, C., . . . van Driel, J. (2017). Girls' future - our future: The Invergowrie Foundation STEM report. Melbourne, Australia: Invergowrie Foundation.
Holmes, K., Gore, J., Smith, M., & Lloyd, A. (2017). An integrated analysis of school students’ aspirations for STEM careers: Which student and school factors are most predictive? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(4), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9793-z.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
IBM Corp. (Released 2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 23.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Kaplan, R. M., Chambers, D. A., & Glasgow, R. E. (2014). Big data and large sample size: A cautionary note on the potential for bias. Clinical and Translational Science, 7(4), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12178.
Kennedy, J., Quinn, F., & Lyons, T. (2018). The keys to STEM: Australian Year 7 students’ attitudes and intentions towards science, mathematics and technology courses. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9754-3.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lee, A. (2011). Mathematical learning instruction and teacher motivation factors affecting science technology engineering and math (STEM) major choices in 4-year colleges and universities: Multilevel structural equation modeling (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Order No. AAT 3471457).
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley.
Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science: Understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments (SiMERR Australia, Trans.). Armidale, Australia: University of New England.
Ma, X. (1997). Reciprocal relationships between attitude toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1997.10544576.
Ma, X. (2001). Participation in advanced mathematics: Do expectation and influence of students, peers, teachers, and parents matter? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1050.
MacPhee, D., Farro, S., & Canetto, S. S. (2013). Academic self-efficacy and performance of underrepresented STEM majors: Gender, ethnic, and social class patterns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12033.
Marjoribanks, K. (2005). Family background, adolescents' educational aspirations, and young Australian adults' educational attainment. International Education Journal, 6(1), 104–112.
McGaw, B. (2006). Achieving quality and equity education. Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre, Australia: University of South Australia.
Muthén, B. O., du Toit, S. H. C., & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes (Unpublished Technical Paper). Retrived from https://www.statmodel.com/download/Article_075.pdf.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
National Academies of Sciences‚ Engineering‚ and Medicine. (2016). Promising practices for strengthening the regional STEM workforce development ecosystem. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Centre for Vocational Education Research. (2006-2009). Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth (wave 1 - wave 4), 2006–2009 [dataset]. Retrieved from https://www.lsay.edu.au/data/access
National Centre for Vocational Education Research. (2016). Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth (LSAY) 2006 cohort user guide. Adelaide, Australia: NCVER.
National Science Board. (2004). An emerging and critical problem of the science and engineering labor force: A companion to science and engineering indicators 2004. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board. (2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2012). Mathematics, engineering & science in the national interest. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Programme for International Student Assessment, 2006 [Dataset]. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/database-pisa2006.htm.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. Paris, France: Author.
Porche, M., Grossman, J. M., & Dupaya, K. C. (2016). New American scientists: first generation immigrant status and college STEM aspirations. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2016015227.
PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia. (2015). Future-proofing Australia’s workforce by growing skills in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) (P. S. R. Centre, Trans.). Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com.au/pdf/a-smart-move-pwc-stem-report-april-2015.pdf.
Prieto, E., & Dugar, N. (2017). An enquiry into the influence of mathematics on students’ choice of STEM careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1501–1520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9753-7.
Productivity Commission. (2016). Digital disruption: What do governments need to do? (Commission Research Paper). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
Royal Academy of Engineering. (2012). Jobs and growth: The importance of engineering skills to the UK economy. London, England: The Royal Academy of Engineering.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley.
Sahin, A., Ekmekci, A., & Waxman, H. C. (2017). The relationships among high school STEM learning experiences, expectations, and mathematics and science efficacy and the likelihood of majoring in STEM in college. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1549–1572. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1341067.
Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. London, England: Penguin.
Sikora, J. (2014). Gendered pathways into post-secondary study of science. Adelaide, Australia: NCVER.
Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education, 96(2), 234–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20479.
Smyth, E., & Hannan, C. (2006). School effects and subject choice: The uptake of scientific subjects in Ireland. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600616168.
Taylor, R. C. (2015). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand students’ subject choices in post-compulsory education. Research Papers in Education, 30(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2014.880732.
The Australian Industry Group. (2015). Progressing STEM skills in Australia. Sydney, Australia: Ai Group.
Tripney, J., Newman, M., Bangpan, M., Niza, C., MacKintosh, M., & Sinclair, J. (2010). Subject choice in STEM: Factors influencing young people (aged 14–19) in education: A systematic review of the UK literature. London, England: Wellcome Trust.
Vartanian, T. P. (2011). Secondary data analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.
Wang, X. (2012). Modeling student choice of STEM fields of study: Testing a conceptual framework of motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED529700).
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: a developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02209024.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.
Wu, M. (2005). The role of plausible values in large-scale surveys. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.05.005.
Funding
The first author of this study was funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship during his PhD candidacy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Consent
Data from PISA is publicly and freely available. Consent for participants in PISA was obtained via parental consent (implicit or explicit). Data from LSAY was accessed after permission from NCVER and ADA was received. All participants in LSAY gave informed consent via telephone, online or in person.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jeffries, D., Curtis, D.D. & Conner, L.N. Student Factors Influencing STEM Subject Choice in Year 12: a Structural Equation Model Using PISA/LSAY Data. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 441–461 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09972-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09972-5