Journal of Youth and Adolescence

, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 1178–1191 | Cite as

Examining Relationships among Choice, Affect, and Engagement in Summer STEM Programs

  • Patrick N. Beymer
  • Joshua M. Rosenberg
  • Jennifer A. Schmidt
  • Neil J. Naftzger
Empirical Research


Out-of-school time programs focused on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) have proliferated recently because they are seen as having potential to appeal to youth and enhance STEM interest. Although such programs are not mandatory, youth are not always involved in making the choice about their participation and it is unclear whether youth’s involvement in the choice to attend impacts their program experiences. Using data collected from experience sampling, traditional surveys, and video recordings, we explore relationships among youth’s choice to attend out-of-school time programs (measured through a pre-survey) and their experience of affect (i.e., youth experience sampling ratings of happiness and excitement) and engagement (i.e., youth experience sampling ratings of concentration and effort) during program activities. Data were collected from a racially and ethnically diverse sample of 10–16 year old youth (n = 203; 50% female) enrolled in nine different summer STEM programs targeting underserved youth. Multilevel analysis indicated that choice and affect are independently and positively associated with momentary engagement. Though choice to enroll was a significant predictor of momentary engagement, positive affective experiences during the program may compensate for any decrements to engagement associated with lack of choice. Together, these findings have implications for researchers, parents, and educators and administrators of out-of-school time programming.


Choice Affect Engagement Out-of-school time STEM education 


Authors’ Contributions

P.B. developed the research question, analytic plan, was involved in the interpretation of data, wrote and revised the manuscript. J.R. critically revised the manuscript, aided in analysis, and interpreted data. J.S. co-conceived of the original study design, critically revised the manuscript, and interpreted data. N.N. co-conceived of the original study design, and aided in data collection. All authors read and approved of the final manuscript.


This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant DRL-1421198. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Data Sharing Declaration

This manuscript’s data will not be deposited.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Bell, K. L., & O’Connor, T. G. (1994). Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65(1), 179–194. Scholar
  2. Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 967. Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.). (pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 132–141. Scholar
  5. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). The handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Hazari, Z. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in stem. International Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 63–79. Scholar
  8. Dijksterhuis, A. (2010). Automaticity and the unconscious. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology 1, (228–267). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Bullock, B. M. (2004). Premature adolescent autonomy: Parent disengagement and deviant peer process in the amplification of problem behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 27(5), 515–530. Scholar
  10. Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 382–393. Scholar
  11. Efklides, A., & Petkaki, C. (2005). Effects of mood on students’ metacognitive experiences. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 415–431. Scholar
  12. Elam, M. E., Donham, B. L., & Solomon, S. R. (2012). An engineering summer program for underrepresented students from rural school districts. Journal of STEM Education, 13(2), 35–44.Google Scholar
  13. Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744–778. Scholar
  14. Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out-of-school contexts: A multidimensional view of engagement. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 327–335. Scholar
  15. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. Scholar
  16. Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 207–215. Scholar
  17. Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93–114. Scholar
  18. Flowerday, T., & Shell, D. F. (2015). Disentangling the effects of interest and choice on learning, engagement, and attitude. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 134–140. Scholar
  19. Fortus, D. (2014). Attending to affect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 821–835. https:// Scholar
  20. Frank, K. A., Maroulis, S. J., Duong, M. Q., & Kelcey, B. M. (2013). What would it take to change an inference? Using Rubin’s causal model to interpret the robustness of causal inferences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(4), 437–460. Scholar
  21. Galotti, K. M. (1995). A longitudinal study of real-life decision making: Choosing a college. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(6), 459–484. Scholar
  22. Galotti, K. M. (1999). Making a “major” real-life decision: College students choosing an academic major. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 379–387. Scholar
  23. Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U., & Preckel, F. (2014). “My questionnaire is too long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 188–205. Scholar
  24. Greene, K. M., Lee, B., Constance, N., & Hynes, K. (2013). Examining youth and program predictors of engagement in out-of-school time programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(10), 1557–1572. Scholar
  25. Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220–227. Scholar
  26. Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirsch, B. J., Mekinda, M. A., & Stawicki, J. (2010). More than attendance: The importance of after-school program quality. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 447–452. Scholar
  28. Kataoka, S., & Vandell, D. L. (2013). Quality of afterschool activities and relative change in adolescent functioning over two years. Applied Developmental Science, 17(3), 123–134. Scholar
  29. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. Scholar
  30. Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313. Scholar
  31. Linnenbrink, E. A. (2007). The role of affect in student learning: A multi-dimensional approach to considering the interaction of affect, motivation, and engagement. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 107–124). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L, Wormington, S. V. & Ranellucci, J. (2016). Measuring affect in educational contexts: A Circumplex Approach. In M. Zembylas, P. A. Schutz (Eds.) Methodological Advances in Research on Emotion and Education. New York, NY: Springer US. .Google Scholar
  33. McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Instrument development in the affective domain: School and corporate applications. 3rd edn. New York, NY: Springer. 4614-7135-6 McLaughlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meinhardt, J., & Pekrun, R. (2003). Attentional resource allocation to emotional events: An ERP study. Cognition & Emotion, 17(3), 477–500. Scholar
  35. Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Jackson, C., Miller, M., Walcott, B., Little, D. L., Speler, L., Schooler, W., & Schroeder, D. C. (2014). Developing middle school students’ interests in stem via summer learning experiences: See blue stem camp. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 291–301. Scholar
  36. Naftzger, N., Moroney, D., Schmidt, J., & Shumow, L. (2014). STEM interest and engagement study. National Science Foundation Grant No: DRL-1421198.Google Scholar
  37. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Building America’s Skilled Technical Workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Scholar
  38. Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 522–534. Scholar
  39. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270–300. Scholar
  40. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915. Scholar
  41. Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Trimble, S. S., Pituch, K. A., & Freeman, J. L. (2017). Daily autonomy supporting or thwarting and students’ motivation and engagement in the high school science classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology.
  42. Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C., Steingut, R. R., Trimble, S. S., & Pituch, K. A. (2016). Daily interest, engagement, and autonomy support in the high school science classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 180–194. Scholar
  43. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. Scholar
  44. Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christensen, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). New York, NY: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Renninger, K. A. (2007). Interest and motivation in informal science learning. IEEE Computer Society Press. pdf.Google Scholar
  47. Reschly, A. L., Huebner, E. S., Appleton, J. J., & Antaramian, S. (2008). Engagement as flourishing: The contribution of positive emotions and coping to adolescents’ engagement at school and with learning. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 419–431. Scholar
  48. Rosenberg, J. R., Xu, R., & Frank, K. A. (2018). konfound: Sensitivity analysis based on Rubin’s causal model.
  49. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Scholar
  50. Schmidt, J. A., Rosenberg, J. M., & Beymer, P. N. (2018). A person‐in‐context approach to student engagement in science: Examining learning activities and choice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 19–43. Scholar
  51. Shernoff, D. J. (2010). Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence and academic performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 325–337. Scholar
  52. Shernoff, D. J., & Schmidt, J. A. (2008). Further evidence of an engagement–achievement paradox among U.S. high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 564–580. Scholar
  53. Shernoff, D. J., & Vandell, D. L. (2007). Engagement in after-school program activities: Quality of experience from the perspective of participants. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(7), 891–903. Scholar
  54. Shumow, L., Schmidt, J. A., & Zaleski, D. J. (2013). Multiple perspectives on student learning, engagement, and motivation in high school biology labs. The High School Journal, 96(3), 232–252. Scholar
  55. Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 70–83. Scholar
  56. Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. Scholar
  57. Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strati, A. D., Schmidt, J. A., & Maier, K. S. (2017). Perceived challenge, teacher support, and teacher obstruction as predictors of student engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 131–147. Scholar
  59. Vandell, D. L., Warschauer, M., O’Cadiz, M. P., & Hall, V. (2008). Two year evaluation study of the Tiger Woods Learning Center: Volume I, II, III. Irvine, CA: Tiger Woods Foundation.Google Scholar
  60. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3–25. Scholar
  61. Yilmaz, M., Ren, J., Custer, S., & Coleman, J. (2010). Hands-on summer camp to attract k-12 students to engineering fields. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(1), 144–151. Scholar
  62. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2003). Autonomy development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology (pp. 175–204). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick N. Beymer
    • 1
  • Joshua M. Rosenberg
    • 1
  • Jennifer A. Schmidt
    • 1
  • Neil J. Naftzger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Afterschool and Youth DevelopmentAmerican Institutes for ResearchNapervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations