Research in Higher Education

, Volume 56, Issue 8, pp 813–842 | Cite as

“But I’m Not Good at Math”: The Changing Salience of Mathematical Self-Concept in Shaping Women’s and Men’s STEM Aspirations

  • Linda J. Sax
  • M. Allison Kanny
  • Tiffani A. Riggers-Piehl
  • Hannah Whang
  • Laura N. Paulson
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

STEM Mathematical self-concept Gender College Major selection 

References

  1. 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
  2. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NewYork: Free man.Google Scholar
  4. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers. Gender and Education, 17(2), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and disadvantages of their solutions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (1997). Mediators of gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores: a comparison of spatial skills with internalized beliefs and anxieties. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments1. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: the impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48(2), 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Ethington, C. A. (1988). Differences among women intending to major in quantitative fields of study. The Journal of Educational Research, 81(6), 354–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two “male-typed” domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ginzberg, E., Ginsburg, S. W., Axelrad, S., & Herma, J. L. (1951). Occupational choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Kanny, M. A., Sax, L. J., & Riggers-Piehl, T. A. (2014). Investigating forty years of STEM research: How explanations for the gender gap have evolved over time. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(2), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A, Jr. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(3), 307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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, 79–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2009). Women engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution study of women engineering student self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Global self-esteem: Its relation to specific facets of self-concept and their importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1224–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marsh, H. W. (1989). Effects of single-sex and coeducational schools: A response to Lee and Bryk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 651–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh, H. W., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional self-concepts: Relations with sex and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1998). Longitudinal structural equation models of academic self-concept and achievement: Gender differences in the development of math and English constructs. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 705–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Meece, J. L., Parsons, J. E., Kaczala, C. M., & Goff, S. B. (1982). Sex differences in math achievement: Toward a model of academic choice. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching Category 5. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  41. National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 12-01).Google Scholar
  42. Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pascarella, E. T., Smart, J. C., Ethington, C. A., & Nettles, M. T. (1987). The influence of college on self-concept: A consideration of race and gender differences. American Educational Research Journal, 24(1), 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12), 4403–4408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Riegle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2011). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education, 95(3), 458–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  50. Sax, L. J. (1994a). Predicting gender and major-field differences in mathematical self-concept during college. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sax, L. J. (1994b). Mathematical self-concept: How college reinforces the gender gap. Research in Higher Education, 35(2), 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sax, L. J. (2008). The gender gap in college: Maximizing the developmental potential of women and men. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  53. Sax, L. J., Bryant, A. N., & Harper, C. E. (2005). The differential effects of student-faculty interaction on college outcomes for women and men. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 642–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of educational research, 46(3), 407–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Sherman, J. (1982). Continuing in mathematics: A longitudinal study of the attitudes of high school girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7(2), 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sherman, J. (1983). Factors predicting girls’ and boys’ enrollment in college preparatory mathematics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7(3), 272–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smart, J. C., & Pascarella, E. T. (1986). Self-concept development and educational degree attainment. Higher Education, 15(1–2), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Super, D. E., Brown, D., & Brooks, L. (1990). Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  60. Tai, R. T., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. T. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing undergraduate science: Why some things work and most don’t. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  62. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121. doi:10.3102/0002831213488622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Watt, H. M. (2000). Measuring attitudinal change in mathematics and English over the 1st year of junior high school: A multidimensional analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(4), 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Watt, H. M. (2006). The role of motivation in gendered educational and occupational trajectories related to maths. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Changes in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A three-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda J. Sax
    • 1
  • M. Allison Kanny
    • 1
  • Tiffani A. Riggers-Piehl
    • 2
  • Hannah Whang
    • 1
  • Laura N. Paulson
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Education & Information StudiesUniversity of California Los Angeles (UCLA)Los AngelesUSA
  2. 2.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations