Introduction

People in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields often have better job prospects and a wider choice of rewarding careers. However women are still greatly under-represented in (STEM) college programmes and careers (Delaney & Devereux, 2019). In most European countries, the proportion of females pursuing a career in STEM is still low, particularly for occupations in technology and engineering (Ertl et al., 2017). In the U.S. and Canada, the gender gap in graduating with a STEM-related degree is believed to account for about a 20% of the wage gap (Card & Payne, 2017). In Ireland less than 25% of the 117,800 workers in STEM occupations are female (Bruton, 2017).

Ireland has ranked 7th in the EU on the Gender Equality Index. However, while females are encouraged to engage with STEM, study STEM and undertake STEM-related careers, subject choice at post-primary level continues to be influenced by historical stereotypes of gender (Kelly et al., 2019).

The secondary school curriculum is broken into two sections: the three year junior cycle and the two year senior cycle. For the junior cycle, English, Maths, History, and Irish are all compulsory and student can choose two additional subjects. At the end of the senior cycle, students sit the leaving certificate state exam in typically, seven or eight subjects. Maths, English and Irish are compulsory and two or three of the subjects are chosen by the students from the school’s offerings which can range from STEM to non-STEM. Depending on the school, their choice at both cycles may be limited. College admission is mainly determined by performance in the Leaving Certificate examinations.

Subject choice at post-primary level can determine the entry path to courses at third-level (Jeffries et al., 2020). Many schools in Ireland, particularly single sex schools, do not offer a full choice of subjects in STEM disciplines. In schools where there is a broad subject choice, the male-dominated subjects such as Engineering, timetable conflicts can occur, which see these subjects coinciding with female-dominated subjects such as Home Economics or Biology. This is not unique to Ireland with the US showing that one-third of the high schools do not offer chemistry or advanced placement (AP) courses (Means et al., 2017), and Justman and Méndez (2018) show that gender streaming into STEM related subjects in Australia is apparent in senior secondary school.

Addressing the gender gap in STEM is a major goal of many countries. A policy document issued by the Department of Education in Ireland has stated that one of its goals is to: “Increase participation of females in STEM education and careers” (Bruton, 2017).

This study was guided by the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (Lent et al., 2002). The aim of this research was to first understand if there are issues across each of the STEM disciplines, and second to focus on why there might be issues in all or some of the fields, to understand the barriers, influencing factors and decision making of girls at post-primary level when making subject and career choice. We chose SCCT as a starting point, as according to the theory, students’ perceptions of STEM careers and self-efficacy in STEM are major factors which impact their decisions to choose STEM areas of study (Kanny et al., 2014; Mohtar et al., 2019). We investigated the gender gap in STEM through a literature review, an examination of the statistics around subject and discipline uptake and focus groups with students from an all-female school:

  1. 1.

    We propose that some of the factors as outlined on the SCCT model may have greater influence on the decision making of female students to pursue a STEM related discipline at post-primary level.

  2. 2.

    We also propose that examining gender disparity under one large umbrella labelled STEM may be skewing the reality of STEM subject uptake among genders.

In the next section we present the literature review. This is followed by a description of the methods used, the findings, the results, discussion, and conclusions.

Literature Review.

There is a vast body of literature that considers the decision making of individual to choose a career to understand the gender gap in STEM (Kanny et al., 2014). In focusing on a proven framework, we draw upon Lent, Brown, and Hackett’s Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (Bahar & Adiguzel, 2016; Lent et al., 1994) as a means to explore the factors that influence an interest and choice of career in STEM amongst females (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Social Cognitive Career Theory model, based on (Mohtar et al. 2019)

Full size image

The model proposes that, an individual will develop an interest in a career that they believe they are competent to undertake and will expect to achieve a desirable outcome due to their efforts. Self-efficacy and outcome expectations therefore can determine interest and vice versa, which can also lead to self-efficacy and outcome expectations.”

This in turn influences career choice goals leading to, choice actions. A number of other factors can influence self-efficacy and outcome expectations, notably, person inputs and background contextual affordances (Lent et al., 1994; Turner et al., 2019). Person inputs and contextual affordances directly affect opportunities to career pathways and the model acknowledges the role of gender as a factor that influences the way individuals make career-based decisions. Therefore as argued by (Kanny et al., 2014) it can be deduced that gender operates through self-efficacy and outcome expectations therefore the SCCT is an apt theory to investigate STEM career development among women.

The Theory suggests that interest in STEM careers is based on constructs such as perceptions, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goal orientation, which are determined by environmental factors such as social influences (friends, relatives, teachers, peers, etc.), learning experiences (subjects, school activities, outside classroom activities, etc.), media influences, motivation and occupational expectations (Halim et al., 2018; Lent et al., 1994; Mohtar et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2016). SCCT has been applied by researchers in this area to understand the factors that lead to choosing a career in STEM (Fouad & Santana, 2017; Mau et al., 2019; Turner et al., 2019).

SCCT illustrates that gender plays a role when people make career-based decisions. The categories act as a means to frame opportunity structures within a societal context, enabling gender to manifest through self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Kanny et al., 2014).

Person Inputs and background contextual affordance

Person inputs and background contextual affordance may affect students’ attitudes, experience and participation of STEM subjects (DeWitt & Archer, 2015; Ertl et al., 2017). It relates to the resources one perceives as being provided by one’s environment (Vondracek & Schulenberg, 1986) and the culture and cultural norms in which a person is embedded (Lent et al., 2002). It is also related to socioeconomic status and social connections so has a reciprocal relationship to person inputs. It has been shown that minority groups, women and those from a lower socioeconomic status are less likely to pursue a career in Stem (Kanny et al., 2014; Turner et al., 2019).

Gender stereotypes can also lower girls’ aspirations for STEM careers (Graves, 2014; Iskander et al., 2013). Contextual affordance also relates to access to learning experiences with many studies showing that many STEM subjects are not available to lower socio economic groups and females (Cheryan et al., 2017).

Learning experiences

Learning experiences can influence students’ perception, self-efficacy, interests, and subject choices. Students with positive experiences in primary education STEM subjects are more likely to pursue Stem at 3rd level (Sahin et al., 2015) and subsequently choose STEM-related careers (Sahin et al., 2014). Wang and Degol (2013) found that exposure to mathematics and science subjects was a major indicator of students’ entry into STEM disciplines then mathematics achievement, originally considered the best predictor. Gender gaps in Leaving Certificate subject choices are just as large in mixed gender schools, suggesting differential availability of subjects and infrastructure is not a major factor (Delaney & Devereux, 2019). However, career opportunities are determined by schools, teachers, pedagogy, curriculum and preparation, achievement and standardised tests (Kanny et al., 2014). All male schools are more likely to offer STEM subjects for the Leaving Certificate (Delaney & Devereux, 2019). Females have fewer opportunities of exposure to these subjects. However, there appears to be no gender gap in science, with the largest gaps in technology and engineering (Delaney & Devereux, 2019). Teacher biases can also play a role in determining subject choices. Hand et al. (2017) found that teachers displayed subtle bias by attributing more masculine characteristics to a scientist and feminine characteristics to the humanities. They also reported their belief that boys outperform girls in STEM disciplines (ibid.). It has also been suggested that teachers’ biased behaviour at early stages of schooling has long run implications for occupational choices and earnings at adulthood (Lavy & Sand, 2018).

Social influences / Contextual Influences Proximal to Choice Behaviour

Social influences and contextual factors such as the expectations of others and the supports and barriers the student experiences have a mediating effect on his/her decision-making process (Ekmekci et al., 2019; Lent et al., 2002; Sahin et al., 2017). Several previous studies have shown that teachers, parents or the peers can influence subject and career choice (Ekmekci et al., 2019). Heyder et al. (2019) found that teachers described their male students as being stronger in their maths ability and that students at the end of primary school seem to have internalized their teachers’ gender bias. Brenøe and Zölitz (2020) state that having a larger proportion of female peers reduces women’s probability of enrolling in and graduating from STEM programs. Raabe et al. (2019) argue that girls will only select STEM related subject in school if their peers are also doing those subjects. They conclude that this reinforces pre-existing preferences and results in the widening of the STEM gender gap.

Students’ interests in science can be strongly correlated with both parental attitudes and engagement in science-related activities outside of school (DeWitt & Archer, 2015). Students who have at least one parent working in a STEM field have a higher probability of performing on the highest percentiles of math scores (Anaya et al., 2017). Parents may also invest in private schooling, and extracurricular activities for their children to give their child an advantage in the field of education (Vincent & Ball, 2007). Children whose families possessed more involvement in science-related endeavours, such as qualifications and careers, were more likely to study science or pursue a science-related career (Archer et al., 2012; Archer et al., 2014). Guo et al. (2019) also found that while maternal role models can help encourage daughters towards positive attitudes around gender within STEM, pervasive stereotyping continues to exist on what constitutes as suitable fields of study for females.

Perceptions of STEM Careers

Undergraduate students’ future career choices are usually positively affected by their perception of a career (Morgan et al., 2001). Students whose parents have similar career interests, possess increased career confidence and self-efficacy (Akosah-Twumasi et al., 2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM professions are significantly impacted by their knowledge of the skills needed and future prospects (Franz-Odendaal et al., 2016; Wyss et al., 2012). Students who are unfamiliar with certain careers usually do not pursue them (Franz-Odendaal et al., 2016). Perceptions of STEM careers can also be based on stereotypical views such as the view of a scientist working in a lab (Bodzin & Gehringer, 2001). Negative views of STEM careers at second level can lead to a lack of engagement with those particular subjects, which leads to a lack of awareness as to the types of skills suitable for STEM careers (Wyss et al., 2012). Interaction with those who currently work in STEM at second level may influence students’ interest in STEM careers as well as overcome students’ misconceptions and stereotypical views.

Self-Efficacy and Outcome expectations

A person’s sense of self-efficacy rests on their perceived ability to undertake a task effectively, and is influenced by contextual, personal, and experiential factors (MacPhee et al., 2013; Tellhed et al., 2017). Students who have a high science self-efficacy were found to be better motivated to address challenging goals, positing that students’ self-efficacy in STEM is positively related to STEM task performance interest and engagement (Rittmayer & Beier, 2008). While self-efficacy concerns confidence in one’s own ability, outcome expectations result from an assessment to which degree one’s own skills are sufficient to achieve satisfactory outcomes in a field (Ertl et al., 2017).

However, It has also been shown that vicarious experience and social persuasion are the most influential sources of self-efficacy in STEM for females, which confirms that women are influenced by both societal and contextual factors (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Females may also be avoiding pursuing careers in STEM because they erroneously believe that they belong to a group that is less likely to possess the qualities needed for success in these fields (Wang & Degol, 2013). Female students often avoid STEM career paths even if they achieve good results as they believe that positive outcomes are based on talent rather than diligence (Kessels, 2015). As such, STEM engagement is especially important for young females, who show positive changes in both perception of abilities and career interests (Chachashvili-Bolotin et al., 2016; Prives, 2012; Weinberg et al., 2007).

However efficacy is not the only factor linked to outcome expectation, some studies suggest that women hold different values that affect their career choice, such as, placing more emphasis on people-centered and caring professions rather than potential career earnings (Chachashvili-Bolotin et al., 2016).

Interest in STEM Life Sciences & Physical Sciences

Factors influencing perception of students’ interest in STEM careers include the students’ own interest in STEM careers, their perception of STEM, classroom culture and self-efficacy in STEM-related fields (Franz-Odendaal et al., 2016).

Previous studies also show that males prefer working with objects, whereas females prefer working with other people (Su et al., 2009). Moreover, even within STEM fields, women are more likely to choose degrees that emphasise community and are people oriented. They will choose STEM careers when they believe that STEM professionals can build strong social relationships (So et al., 2020). As such, women, obtain degrees in biomedical and environmental engineering at higher rates than in mechanical or electrical engineering (Ceci & Williams, 2011). Women’s preferences for people-oriented careers may be partly motivated by altruism, as women report a greater desire than men to help others and benefit society (Wyss et al., 2012). Women may also be influenced by different values that affect their career choice, as they may place less emphasis on potential career earnings and more importance on jobs that allow them to nurture others (Zafar, 2013).

The SCCT model describes the factors that can determine the career path of an individual. However, there are a number of research gaps within the literature that require further study. Kanny et al. (2014) show that the focus of the various constructs in the literature have varied over a forty-year time span with an emphasis at different stages on one or few of these constructs. They emphasise the importance of not focusing on a single explanation for the gender imbalance but to consider if and how the elements such as family influence, background characteristics, structural barriers, function together in determining females STEM selection. Wang and Degol (2013) have highlighted that gender difference in interest in Stem starts in early adolescent and is reinforced by experiences. Therefore, an important line of work is to gather the experiences of students from early adolescence to adulthood. Furthermore, the literature has mainly focused on STEM at the aggregate level assuming that all subject that belong to STEM are regarded by gender in the same way. This points to a need to focus on the subfield level of STEM to fully understand the nuances involved. This research applied a SCCT framework to address these topics.

Methods

The research approach was two-fold. Firstly, we validated the gender disparity in STEM fields by examining the datasets of subject uptake at post primary leaving certificate level and course entrants at third level by gender. National data from 2019/2020 for all schools in Ireland were examined to determine the uptake of subjects by gender. This was compared with the statistics for full-time undergraduate new entrants in all Higher Education Authority (HEA) Funded Institutions by field of study for 2018/2019 (CSO, 2020).

Secondly, based on the findings of the quantitative study we conducted qualitative focus groups and questionnaires with females at three different stages of post primary education to understand their decision making and influences when selecting subjects at the junior certificate cycle and the leaving certificate cycle, and in turn their choice of career at third level. An all-female, school was chosen due to its reputation of producing high-achieving students. We chose this school to rule out the variable of socio-economic factors which has been shown to have a bearing on the low uptake of STEM disciplines amongst females. Students from lower SES with low parental education and family income tend to have lower interest in STEM fields (Chachashvili-Bolotin et al., 2016).

38 students took part in the questionnaire and focus group. Random sampling was used and all students from each year level were invited to take part. Students that were not able to provide guardian consent were excluded from the study. 17 of the students were in the Leaving cert year, 6 were in the Junior certificate year and 15 were in first year. The questionnaire was used to gather initial data from the students in advance of the focus group to gather individual data i.e., Subject choice, CAO choice (6th year only) and influencing factors. The focus group took a semi-structured form, with conversational prompts used to guide the conversation and promote input from all members (Table 1). The results of the focus group were then sorted by the components of the SCCT model.

Table 1 Prompts used during focus group
Full size table

The data was transcribed and analysed around the SCCT framework, and several themes emerged based on the model. These were categorised under: learning experiences, contextual influences, perceptions of STEM careers, self-efficacy in STEM and interest in STEM, both life sciences and physical sciences.

Findings

The datasets on subject choice by gender is presented first. This is followed by the discipline choice by gender for third level fields.

Datasets of subject uptake at post-primary and course entrants at third level by gender.

National data from the Department of Education / Higher Education Authority were collated in order to validate the gender disparity in STEM-subject choice (Table 2). The subject choices of 700 schools were examined and grouped into mixed-sex and single-sex categories. Overall females have much lower representation than males across typical STEM related subjects. However, females have a higher representation in two of the science fields, biology, and chemistry. Females are poorly represented in physics and chemistry when it is combined with physics. This may be due to a lack of availability of these subjects or that females are making the decision to not choose certain STEM subjects.

Table 2 Table 2
Full size table

New entrants to undergraduate courses in all third level institutions in Ireland were also categorised by gender, to assess STEM-career uptake (Table 3). While the data shows that females are well represented in education, arts and humanities and social sciences they also have a greater representation over males in natural sciences, mathematics, statistics and health and welfare which are STEM related fields. Even within the categories of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary, females made up 80% of entrants to veterinary. This shows that females are well represented in STEM when it relates to life science and maths. Where there is a shortfall in female entrants is in the technology and engineering fields. This directly corresponds to the national subject uptake shown at post-primary level amongst males and females. Design is represented across different categories, and courses classified within arts and humanities such as fashion design have greater female representation while courses such as architecture which is categorised under engineering, manufacturing, and construction have greater male representation.

Table 3 Full-time Undergraduate New Entrants in All HEA-Funded Institutions by field of study (ISCED) (1 March 2018)
Full size table

The next section presents the results of the focus group which explores in more detail the underlying reasons for the gender differences.

Focus group findings

Leaving Cert subject choice and CAO choices.

Figure 2 represents a breakdown of STEM/non-STEM CAO choices of the 17 leaving certificate students surveyed. Eight selected to do a science related subject, one an engineering and one a maths related discipline at third level. This shows that over half of the students chose STEM and just less than half chose to do science related courses. Of the students that selected a third level course in STEM, one person had selected all three science subjects, 8 had two science subjects. All 17 students had selected at least one science subject. 16 of the 17 students selected Biology and one student selected just Physics. The student who had selected the three sciences had selected to do mathematical science and the student who selected just physics had chosen to do engineering at third level.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Breakdown of STEM/non-STEM subject CAO choices

Full size image

The females that took part in the focus group were well represented in the Science disciplines and were attracted to science subjects which are human-facing and health-related. This is reflected in the numbers doing biology and selecting courses such as Biomedical science, Physiotherapy, Occupational therapy, Speech and language therapy, medicine, and nursing. This sample was representative of the national figures, which show that females are well-represented in the sciences (see Table 4).

Table 4 Leaving cert subject choice versus CAO choices among 17 leaving cert students
Full size table

Focus group observations

A number of themes emerged from the findings based on the SCCT framework which are discussed below. These were: learning experiences, contextual influences, perceptions of STEM careers, self-efficacy and outcome expectations in STEM and interest in STEM, both life sciences and physical sciences.

Learning experiences.

Many girls’ subject choice is due to lack of choice and while science is available to girls the limitations are in the areas of technology, engineering, and maths.

We don’t have any choices in the school… We don’t have accounting, woodwork, metal work, or economics. Yeah, and TG (Technical graphics).

– Student from Leaving certificate year.

Some students felt that stereotyping of female and male roles is still in existence with subject choice in schools.

Most other schools do TG as a subject. I think we might just do a small course in it, but we don’t properly do it here and that would definitely promote more women in an all-girls school towards technology.

I feel like they don’t feel like they need to have it considering It’s a man’s area, its associated with being for men. Obviously, it’s not.

– Student from Junior certificate year.

There was also a belief that this was unfair and unequal.

There is so much stuff that is not here in our school because we are an all-girls school or is here because it’s an all-girls school.

Everyone is meant to be equal, but it makes you wonder if it is equal at this stage.

– Student from first year.

Even amongst the available subjects there was no option to try out subjects in 1st year before selection. Subject choice was often a process of elimination in terms of interest.

For me I picked business because I didn’t like art, music or Spanish.

– Student from Leaving certificate year

I don’t think you ever fully know but you can cut out what you don’t need. If you know that you are not going to do business don’t do business.

.

– Student from Leaving certificate year.

Students are further limited by a restricted timetable when subjects are timetabled at the same time.

I wanted to do business, but I couldn’t do it because it was on at the same time as physics.

– Student from Leaving certificate year.

However, there is a strong culture within the school toward medicine and health related fields marked by the availability of all three science subjects within the timetable.

The only ones that don’t clash are the three sciences. You can do the three sciences if you want.

– Student from Leaving certificate year.

Students were unable to trial specific STEM-based subjects, indicating that the school lacked the infrastructure for STEM subject availability and objective subject choice.

Participants also stated that their subject choice in school had a direct influence on CAO choices.

Researcher: “Do you feel that maybe not having some of those subjects would put you off putting courses on your CAO?”

Student: “Yeah. More so the subjects that we are doing would steer us towards putting a course down.”

-Student from Leaving certificate year.

Some students expressed an interest in STEM-related fields but believed that they did not have the subjects that would support them to choose a career in that area.

Yeah, I don’t know what I want to do. But I think if I did have subjects like TG or Metalwork or anything like that, it would help to guide you [toward physical sciences]. Because we don’t have the option, the subjects we do have, you kind of just focus on them. My brother did TG and seeing him doing it was interesting. So, it was annoying when I came in and didn’t have the option.

– Students from Leaving certificate year.

Many students felt that they were not sufficiently informed to choose a technology or engineering course.

Researcher: “Would you consider engineering?”

Student: “Yeah, I did but I don’t really know, I’m not sure like. I probably wouldn’t put it down first.”

Researcher: “Why?”

Student: “I just don’t know enough about it. I don’t know what a technology course would even be like, I don’t know anything about it at all.”

– Students from Leaving certificate year.

Some students did not know how to find out the required information.

Researcher: “Do you think that there’s anywhere you can go or anyone you can talk to, to get more information on engineering?”

Student: “Not really. I don’t know where to go for that.”

– Students from Junior certificate year.

Transition Year programs and Teachers can positively impact on the uptake of STEM subjects.

Student: “[Mr X] was our head of TY…, he made sure we were exposed to STEM.”

Researcher: What parts of your experience in TY doing physics made you want to continue it on?

Student: “He was obviously really passionate about it.…He did stuff that was interesting and applied it to daily life. I didn’t really know much about it, but then I choose it after him.”

– Students from Leaving certificate year.

Contextual Influences.

In selecting subjects, students stated that they were dependent on the guidance and influence of others and less likely to take a chance on a subject they were unfamiliar with therefore risking the perpetuation of stereotyping. The students either followed other siblings or were directed by parents:

My sister had picked business and my parents thought it would be a good idea to have it as something general, but I never liked it.

– Student from Leaving certificate year

I did music, my mam made me do music.

.

– Student from Leaving certificate year.

Peers were also shown to influence and there was a risk that some of these influences may be biased and not based on evidence.

Student: “I’ve heard that geography is just kind of an easier subject to get an A and like it’s just easier.”

Researcher: “so who told you geography is an easy A?”

Student “Just like past pupils from the school. My older brother, and my cousin is doing it in 5th year, so she said its good.”

– Students from Junior certificate year.

15 out of the 17 Leaving cert participants claimed that they had selected a third level course that is similar to a sibling or a parent’s profession. Both parents and siblings can serve as role models for students, influencing subject choices based on what is familiar to them.

I don’t know what like job I want, but for my leaving cert I want to do chemistry biology and Spanish because I feel like I just really liked science because my mom’s a scientist and I always loved science.

- Student from sixth year.

When asked about computer science many of the students stated that they knew very little about it due to a lack of exposure. However, one girl they knew was going to choose it because her father was a software developer. Another student showed a strong interest in programming because her mother who was a third level lecturer introduced her to programming.

I love programming. Yeah, my mum brought home a robot for a few days.

– Student from first year.

Parents can also have a strong influence in deterring their children from doing a course.

I like architecture and I like engineering, but my dad warned that you couldn’t really with this school. do engineering.

– Students from first year.

“My dad is an engineer and he said it was going to be all engineering in first year. He was advising me that I probably wouldn’t want to do that”.

– Student from sixth year.

Social connections can also make opportunities available for students. The following example shows how a student’s family connections were able to facilitate work experience in a hospital which led to the decision to opt for occupational therapy.

My sister does OT (Occupational Therapy), but I don’t think I’m influenced by her. My aunt is an OT as well. I always wanted to do something in health care, and I was trying to decide between physio and OT. I did a work experience last year in a hospital and I got to see the physios and OTs together so that was really good, so I decided, OT.

– Students from sixth year.

Students may also find that the role models and associations of family members further enforce their perceived value of certain disciplines. The following is a positive example showing that non-family older males may also be a role model for young girls.

Student: “I want to be a colon surgeon.”

Researcher: “That’s very specific, why do you want to do that?”

Student: “A lot of my dad’s friends are doctors, and they were telling me about what they do and how stuff works.”

– Students from 1st year.

Perceptions of STEM Careers

There appeared to be a limited understanding of what constitutes STEM between students. While most knew what the acronym stands for, few students understood what subjects constituted STEM, except for the sciences. For example, some students listed business Studies and teaching as a stem discipline. STEM was also associated with intelligence. When asked what type of person would be interested in STEM the answers given included: a smart person, scientist, teacher, doctor, surgeon, mechanic, maths teacher, and a psychologist. Therefore, while the students were mostly correct with their answers, they were not sure what careers fell outside the STEM umbrella, due to the lack of availability and experience of STEM subjects as a career choice. There was a belief amongst many that a career in science meant working solely in a lab.

I was going to do science but working in a lab didn’t appeal to me so I think I prefer business because you can go anywhere.

  • Students from sixth year.

.

Many students believed that certain Leaving Cert subjects were necessary for some third level course and if they did not choose them, they would be excluded from potential career paths. This perception was often inaccurate and risks ruling out options for students.

Student: “For the leaving cert I’d like to do art and geography and maybe Home Ec. but the other subjects that help you to do architecture and stuff like that aren’t here.”.

Researcher: “Do you think that by not doing things like Tech Graphics and DCG, that will make it more difficult to get into architecture?”

Student: “Yeah. Yeah.”

Researcher: “Hands up who thinks it would be harder to get into architecture if you didn’t have Tech graphics?”

Researcher: “Okay that’s 14 of 15.”

Student: “It’s like starting from scratch.”

– Student from first year.

A lack of knowledge about a discipline can mean that people can form negative assumptions and perceptions about that discipline. Despite having little or no knowledge about computer science the students acknowledged a negative association to computer science.

I don’t have an interest in those subjects, probably because I was never exposed to them. Like when someone says, ‘would you like to do computer programming?’ I’m like ‘God no,’ but then I think that all I know about computer programming is, nothing. I feel ‘no way’, but I don’t know enough about it.

– Students from sixth year.

There was a negative association with engineering as being of a lower occupation status.

There definitely isn’t enough emphasis in this country about, practical things and the trades because like in Germany and everything they have, like it’s such a good and high-level education if you’re an apprentice or in woodwork or metal work otherwise here its seen way lower than it is over there and way less educated. It’s not the typical knowing knowledge off the top of your head.

– Students from third year.

This shows that there is a low level of investment by the students in technology and engineering. Students had a stronger interest in other subjects and had a more positive view of these disciplines.

Self-Efficacy and Outcome expectations of STEM

There was a strong self-efficacy and outcome expectations when it came to health-related fields in science. Many of the sixth-year students were very focused on selecting health related courses at third level. Many of these courses were at the top end of the scale in terms of entry points to third level to show that these students had a positive belief in their ability to achieve high academic results.

I just love Biology and it’s really broad so you can branch off into different things afterwards. I’m not too sure because I like the sound of physio as well. And with physio you can go on and do medicine.

– Student from sixth year.

However, the findings suggest that females have high self-efficacy when it comes to Biology but less so with Physics and Chemistry. The following student had a strong interest in Biology and related subjects but because a course she had an interest in at third level included physics and chemistry poor self-efficacy in exceling in those subjects was a reason for her to not select a career in STEM.

I had food nutrition on my CAO but in the first year you have to do chemistry, physics and biology. I feel that I’d be alright in the first year, but I wouldn’t want to drop out after a year either. So, I felt business was my safe option.

– Students from sixth year.

During the focus group, the participants spoke about how they have positioned their CAO choices to give them the best opportunity for employment and career advancement.

Student: “I have only one thing on my CAO at the moment: Biological and chemical sciences in UL because I originally wanted to do medicine because I know that I won’t get it on the first round. So, if I get enough points, I might take the year out. If I did get a place in UL I could wait and see and if I get it next year, I will take it. If I don’t, I’ll defer the one that I have from this year and possibly take it next year.”

Researcher: “Why bio-medical?.

Student: “It’s because there is a load of companies now in Galway.”

- Student from sixth year.

Some students had some experience with technology and programming which was a positive experience for them. However, to develop strong self-efficacy students may need more than a short introduction. The following example shows that while the student had great interest in a STEM based project in primary school, she showed low self-efficacy in rating herself as not good at it.

I remember in sixth class, we did this thing for mini scientist, and we programmed an automatic recording system thing, it was measuring like the condensation in the soil or something. I didn’t really do any coding in that; I wasn’t very good at it, but I’d still really like to do it.

– Student from first year.

In terms of outcome expectation, girls seem to be strategic with a focus on a career path, noticeable that there seems to be an interest in courses that lead to specific professions.

Student: “I want to do medical health science in UCC.”

Researcher: “what has influenced you to do that?”

Student: “It’s a feeder course into Radiography, physio and Occupational therapy, it’s a feeder into everything really.”

- Student from sixth year.

Interest in STEM Life Sciences & Physical Sciences

The findings show that students need some exposure to a topic before they can develop an interest in that topic. During TY (Transition Year) students get the opportunity to experience the workplace and other disciplines and these experiences in TY can influence career choice. The example below shows that the student was facilitated to do work experience in speech and language which confirmed and developed that interest.

Student: “I have speech and language in Cork and Galway as my first two choices.”

Researcher: “What made you decide to do that?”

Student:” I did work experience in TY, and I really liked it and also I like sciences and working with people.”

– Students from sixth year.

Engineering courses are losing out to the equivalent or closest science courses. The student in the following example opted for science despite having an interest in engineering.

I wanted to do Biomedical Engineering, until about fifth year. But then I changed to Biomedical science because I love chemistry. And now I’ve changed it to physio.

- Student from sixth year

The student in the following example acknowledged that software engineering was an area in demand yet felt that she was not in a position to choose that direction due to a lack of knowledge which could have been resolved in transition year.

Researcher: For instance, do you know that there’s a shortage of software engineers?

Student : Yeah.

Researcher: Do you think that’s something you’re really missing out on, not having exposure?

Student : Yeah, even if we had it as a module in TY, we’d have an idea whether we were good at it or not or if we have an interest in it. We don’t really have the option to do that so.

  • Student from sixth year.

.

Students showed that their exposure while limited in primary school to computer science was a positive experience; however, they believed that their limited exposure meant that they would not see it as a viable career option.

Researcher: “What about computer studies?”

Student 1: “No, we are not even exposed to programming at all in our six years. In [TY] we did a tiny bit of Scratch.”

Student 2: “That was so much fun.”

Student 3: “I did more of that in primary school then I did here.”

– Students from sixth year

In the following example the student only had her father as a reference for engineering and as she had no other insight to what engineering was like allowed herself to be put off by him.

Researcher: “But he felt you wouldn’t like engineering.”

Student: “Yeah because it is so general in first year.”

Researcher: “So, you never got any experience in TY of any engineering program.”

Student: “No.”

– Students from sixth year

There was a strong link between perception, knowledge of a discipline, self-efficacy, and interest. Despite having an interest in electronics one student was not aware of the subjects that might support a career in that area. This lack of knowledge had a knock-on effect of creating a negative perception, poor self-efficacy and disinterest in the subjects that could lead to a career in electronic engineering.

Researcher: “You mentioned that you like electronics. So, do you think there are subjects that might lend themselves to electronics?”

Student 1: “There probably is but I just don’t know about like, I just never heard about them. Like I was talking to my dad and he’s like, ‘do you know what you want to do?’ but like I don’t know what’s out there. But it’s never really spoken about in schools before you pick your subjects, you don’t know.”

Student 2: “Just any career I’ve looked at they all involve the sciences. So, I think even if there was TG and engineering available here, I don’t think I’d have much interest. Isn’t TG like drawing? I don’t think I’d be good at it, and I don’t have an interest I it. I think I’d just prefer the science really.”

-Students from 3rd year.

The findings showed that, with regard to gender disparity within STEM, females are well represented in science particularly in health-related fields. Many of these fields require the top percentage of points for entry into third level. Where there is major underrepresentation of females is within technology and engineering. In this particular study, there were a number of barriers to these disciplines which can be described as a ‘perfect storm’ which fall within the SCC framework which are discussed in the next section.

Results & Discussion.

This study identified six areas which impact on the lack of STEM subject uptake among females:

1) The findings show that examining gender uptake under the one umbrella of STEM can misrepresent the issues. We found that females were strongly represented in science and maths but underrepresented in technology and engineering.

2) We confirmed that the SCCT model was apt in determining the influences on career choice and within that model we were able to see how these factors influenced discipline choice. The learning experiences and lack of availability of engineering and technology subjects was a major barrier in creating exposure to Engineering and Technology subjects and along with unsupportive contextual influences this led to low self-efficacy, outcome expectations and interest in these disciplines.

3) We found that social influence can perpetuate traditional choices but that social influence in the form of social connections and role models were positively associated in females opting for careers in medicine and health science fields.

4) We found that perceptions at times were based on misinformation such as believing that certain subjects were required to be eligible to apply to certain STEM programs.

5) While the literature has shown that ‘Low’ socioeconomic status is the biggest barrier to STEM participation (Cooper & Berry, 2020; Ro et al., 2021) we found that not to be the case with regard to technology and engineering but found that these disciplines were perceived as being associated with a lower social status compared to health related disciplines. 6), We were able to show that outcome expectations were a significant factor in choice and the students were attracted to disciplines that pointed to clear professional roles. This was very much evident with choices in health and medicine where roles such as physiotherapy or occupational therapy are clearly defined. This could not be said for technology and engineering where students stated that they did not know what the role would entail with a qualification in these areas.

The learning experience and school environment is most likely to be a source of objective influence for example where students engage directly with subjects that can objectively inform them and in turn create accurate perceptions which influence self-efficacy and interest in that subject as found by (Delaney & Devereux, 2019).

There were a number of barriers to the lack of physical STEM subject uptake at second and third level amongst females. Firstly, there was limited STEM subject choice and engagement with extra-curricular physical science related subjects, particularly in transition year and low levels of career guidance relating to these fields. The school featured in this study did not provide the option to do applied maths, technical graphics, woodwork, metal work, engineering, computer science and many other technology and engineering related subjects and this can be considered to reflect most all-female schools. However, despite a limited subject choice and timetabling constraints it was possible to do all three science subjects. This was one reason for the high numbers in science and the very low numbers in technology, engineering, and the more technology-related design disciplines. These focus group findings are in line with the findings on the national data for subject uptake at both second and third level institutions. Through the learning experiences in school, students were grounded in knowledge that was objective and largely factual in relation to the sciences. They did not have the same level of knowledge of subjects that would lend themselves to the physical sciences. The students were very strategic about their career paths and could see forward to their professions in the life sciences and the roles involved.

Secondly, where there was limited information to physical science related subjects and the professions, the career path was less clear for these disciplines. Students relied therefore on contextual and social influences in the form of family friends and peers as per Archer et al. (2012); Guo et al. (2019). Social influences were the dominant factor in determining the subject uptake and career path of the students as found in the literature (Archer et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2017). Many of the females in the study were encouraged to follow the choices of their mothers or siblings. These paths were often based on traditional subjects and careers for women such as teaching, nursing, and the life sciences. Therefore, when females are provided with the supports and influences to select a career path away from the physical sciences this in turn creates negative perceptions and assumptions, poor self-efficacy, and a lower level of interest in those fields.

Limited exposure to technology and Engineering combined with social influence led to perceptions about various subjects and disciplines and these perceptions were at times subject to biases and inaccuracies. The example of one student referring to Geography as being an “easy A” was not based on evidence but hearsay that may be incorrect. Many of the students in the findings showed initial interest in Technology and Engineering but in many cases social influences redirected them away from these paths. As outlined by one student who stated that “here, its seen way lower and way less educated”, technology and Engineering could be perceived as a less intellectual pursuit and of a lower social status to other disciplines. Therefore, if students are not provided with the opportunity to experience a subject or are provided with impartial knowledge of that subject, they are then open to social influences which risk being negative towards the physical sciences for females.

All of the above factors created a domino effect whereby a lack of access to STEM subjects leads to a lack of info on that topic, ultimately leading to an overreliance of hearsay and subjective opinion of influencers, resulting in a reduction in the chance of unbiased decision making. This presents a need for schools to offer a neutral, objective source of information for students to make their own, informed choice, mitigating potential biased decisions and influencing factors. However as proposed by Lavy and Sand (2018), there is also a risk that schools and teachers can also be biased, due to a lack of certain subjects, and maintaining a high-achieving status with already established subjects.

Implementation of different subjects, specifically in the areas of technology and engineering, could be championed by teachers already established in these fields. However, they must be supported by the institution in both subject matter, and infrastructure. Some subjects can be relatively simple to implement, through integration of already established curricula, with minimal infrastructure input such as computers, lab support, and software packages. However, other subjects such as engineering, and construction require capital equipment and continuous investment for expansion. While it is notable that the standard in achievement is being maintained in the school, it is at the expense of providing choice for girls. It should also not be down to the discretion or initiative of individual teachers to address this imbalance.

While science subjects are quite well accommodated, many girls’ schools are either under resourced, unmotivated, or slow in adopting technology and engineering related subjects, and adapting to career trends, preferring a more traditional approach to education. National rankings and third level metrics are two other major drivers behind student uptake at second level institutions. Implementing new subjects would have a short-term impact which may be too much of a risk for secondary schools. To that end, provisions could be put in place to ensure that the scholarly reputation of institutions that are implementing new subjects remain unaffected in their establishing years. It appears that many schools may be trading on the tried and tested model of the traditional subjects for girls to maintain points rather than breaking down the stereotype boundaries to provide diversity and choice for students.

Students should be empowered to pilot multiple subjects in STEM fields. For example Boeve-de Pauw et al. (2020) found that even short-term high-tech STEM education interventions can positively impact on female students’ attitudes towards technology. If prospective students were given a greater understanding on subjects, and the potential third level and career directions which emerge from them, it could have a significant impact on their second level choices, and the school in which they wish to study. This could be achieved through the provision of a more structured transition year. Transition year could be tailored to offer students access to subjects that may previously be unavailable due to limitations in infrastructure or expertise. This currently exists in a limited capacity, but there is no standardised process for determining the subject gap in schools and bridging that gap to offer students access to a standard set of subjects, without limiting it to STEM. This could be achieved by partnering schools to create a symbiotic relationship, where students can gain access to infrastructure and expertise from their partner school. Guidance counsellors should also take a holistic approach to career direction, offering guidance on STEM career possibilities. Students should not be restricted in their future career choices, regardless of the confines or limitations of their school’s infrastructure, or whether a student has formally engaged with STEM subjects.

Finally, third level institutions and industry working in Technology and Engineering have a role in demystifying the potential career paths and roles within these areas to remove assumptions and inaccuracies.

Limitations & future work.

We chose one school to conduct the focus group. As such, the experiences reported may differ, depending on school type and influencing factors. A relatively small sample of first, third, and sixth years were chosen to take part in the focus group. While their experiences are interesting and relevant, they may not reflect other students attending similar schools. Future work involves assessing STEM interest and uptake among mixed schools and schools from different socio-economic areas to further substantiate and validate the updated SCCT model.

Conclusions

The research validates SCCT as a metric for examining the gender gap in STEM. Environmental factors, overall interest, self-efficacy, and STEM perceptions were apparent during the focus groups, as students indirectly cited these as influential factors when deciding second level subjects and CAO choices. Results suggest that there is gender disparity in technology, engineering, and technology-related design fields at third level; however, females are well represented in the Science field, favouring life sciences as opposed to physical sciences. When examining students’ experiences at second level, access to STEM subjects, high-achievement, and environmental factors significantly contribute to the propagation of the disparity. Social factors such as teachers, guidance counsellors, parents, family, and friends can also play a significant role when making decisions.

The STEM story is evolving. Societal factors are well documented, and attitudes towards female interest in STEM is less of a factor. The key factor is the initial lack of access to these subjects, where discrimination in providing equal access to STEM for all is still very apparent. School facilities, environmental and social factors, knowledge, and interest in STEM fields should be taken into consideration when attempting to close the gender gap in STEM fields. There is a need for more initiatives to help temper the subjectivity of opinion and to report on the facts regarding STEM subjects. A more structured transition year could be used to grant students to access to subjects with which they may be unfamiliar, empowering them to receive a more well-rounded opinion of STEM subjects. Access to factual, unbiased, objective information streams for students at second level will empower their decision making. Students should be offered access to multiple STEM subjects, as well as unbiased information regarding STEM-based careers in order to demystify and dispel myths to resolve the ambiguity around career choice. Further studies contrasting students from mixed gender schools and all-girl schools could help to validate these finding. Other avenues of research could be in the form of an action research approach to evaluate the impact of initiatives implemented, to understand their role in better informing and improving the self-efficacy and interest levels of female students toward the physical sciences.