“But I’m Not Good at Math”: The Changing Salience of Mathematical Self-Concept in Shaping Women’s and Men’s STEM Aspirations
Math self-concept (MSC) is considered an important predictor of the pursuit of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. Women’s underrepresentation in the STEM fields is often attributed to their consistently lower ratings on MSC relative to men. Research in this area typically considers STEM in the aggregate and does not account for variations in MSC that may exist between STEM fields. Further, existing research has not explored whether MSC is an equally important predictor of STEM pursuit for women and men. This paper uses a national sample of male and female entering college students over the past four decades to address how MSC varies across STEM majors over time, and to assess the changing salience of MSC as a predictor of STEM major selection in five fields: biological sciences, computer science, engineering, math/statistics, and physical sciences. Results reveal a pervasive gender gap in MSC in nearly all fields, but also a great deal of variation in MSC among the STEM fields. In addition, the salience of MSC in predicting STEM major selection has generally become weaker over time for women (but not for men). Ultimately, this suggests that women’s lower math confidence has become a less powerful explanation for their underrepresentation in STEM fields.
KeywordsSTEM Mathematical self-concept Gender College Major selection
- Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence, motivation, and self-concept. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 436–456). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NewYork: Free man.Google Scholar
- Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Center for Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University. Retrieved from http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/stem-complete.pdf.
- College Board (2011). SAT Percentile Ranks 2011. College-Bound Seniors—Critical Reading, Mathematics and Writing Percentile Ranks. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/SAT-Percentile_Ranks_2011.pdf.
- Eagan, K., Lozano, J. B., Hurtado, S., & Case, M. H. (2013). The American freshman: National norms fall 2013. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
- Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). The American freshman: National norms fall 2014. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
- Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Social, emotional, and personality development. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1017–1095). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Ginzberg, E., Ginsburg, S. W., Axelrad, S., & Herma, J. L. (1951). Occupational choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Gonzalez, H.B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf on March 1, 2012.
- Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.Google Scholar
- Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In Duane Brown and Associates (Ed.), Career choice and behavior (pp. 255–311). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
- Lewis, S., Harris, R., & Cox, B. (2000). Engineering a better workplace: A diversity guide for the engineering profession. Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology.Google Scholar
- McGraw, R., Lubienski, S. T., & Strutchens, M. E. (2006). A closer look at gender in NAEP mathematics achievement and affect data: Intersections with achievement, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 129–150.Google Scholar
- National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching Category 5. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Classification of Instructional Programs: 2000 Edition. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002165.pdf on March 1, 2012.
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
- National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 12-01).Google Scholar
- Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Pryor, J. H., Eagan, K., Palucki Blake, L., Hurtado, S., Berdan, J., & Case, M. H. (2013). The American freshman: National norms fall 2012. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
- Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., DeAngelo, L., Palucki Blake, L., & Tran, S. (2010). The American freshman: National norms fall 2010. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
- Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
- Sax, L. J. (2008). The gender gap in college: Maximizing the developmental potential of women and men. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Shavlik, J., & Shavlik, M. (2004). Selection, combination, and evaluation of effective software sensors for detecting abnormal computer usage. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 276-285). ACM.Google Scholar
- Super, D. E., Brown, D., & Brooks, L. (1990). Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing undergraduate science: Why some things work and most don’t. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.Google Scholar