Pygmalion in The Classroom and The Home: Expectations Role in The Pipeline To STEMM

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283118212
Pygmalion in the Classroom and the Home:

Expectations Role in the Pipeline to STEMM
Article in Teachers College Record · October 2015
CITATIONS READS
17 1,830
3 authors, including:
Se Woong Lee
University of Missouri
19 PUBLICATIONS 105 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Se Woong Lee on 18 November 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pygmalion in the Classroom and the Home:
Expectation’s Role in the Pipeline to
STEMM
Se Woong Lee
University of Wisconsin
Sookweon Min
University of Wisconsin
Geoffrey P. Mamerow
Heidelberg University
Background/Context: Although students frequently begin forming ideas about potential

college majors or career choices prior to entering college, research on Science, Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics (STEM), and (M)edicine has almost exclusively focused on stu-
dents’ experiences in postsecondary institutions. To better understand the full length of the
STEMM pipeline—from high school through to postsecondary levels—it is essential to iden-
tify and explore factors that influence students’ choices in STEMM while they are in second-
ary schools, a setting that is arguably the first critical step of the pipeline.
Purpose/Objective: Among factors that influence students’ choices to pursue STEMM fields,
this study examines the influence of students’ self-efficacy and expectation, as well as the
expectation and encouragement they received from parents and high school teachers on their
decisions to major in, complete a degree in, and pursue a career in STEMM. Given this focus
on expectation specifically, the study employs a conceptual framework developed through the
application of prior literature on teacher and parent expectations, as well as Social Cognitive
Career Theory.
Research Design: Using the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) 1987 data,
the study investigated students’ decision making at three distinct time points along a typical
STEMM education/career path and predicted their persistence in the STEMM pipeline by
utilizing logistic regression analyses. To further examine whether such sets of expectations are
moderated by gender, analysis also included interaction terms for gender and teacher expecta-
tion, as well as those of gender and parent expectation.
Teachers College Record Volume 117, 090305, September 2015, 40 pages

Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
1
Teachers College Record, 117, 090305 (2015)
Findings/Results: The results of this study indicate that expectation plays a significant role
in students’ choices in STEMM and teacher expectation is shown to be especially influential.
Focusing on gender differences, males’ choices in STEMM were shown to be most affected by
their teachers’ educational expectations and encouragement while females’ choices were most
affected by those of their parents.
Conclusions/Recommendations: The decision to pursue education and a career in a STEMM
is not a one-time decision, but a longitudinal process that begins during secondary education
and carries on through into college. The findings of this study provide meaningful informa-
tion about the importance of students’ self-efficacy and expectation within the STEMM pipe-
line, as well as the influence teacher expectations and encouragement can have on students’
pursuit of and persistence in STEMM.
Introduction
As modern life has become increasingly mediated by new and com-

plex technologies, the study of Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) has become indispensable, if not paramount, to
society’s future needs and wellbeing (Nicholls, Wolfe, Besterfield-Sacre,
& Shuman, 2010; Ramaley, 2009). When grouped with (M)edicine, the
inextricably linked STEM(M) fields form an array of disciplines that im-
pact peoples’ lives in myriad, profound ways each day. Appropriately, a
national focus on STEMM is now reflected in social and education poli-
cy at all levels, including the nation’s highest federal initiatives (Kuenzi,
2008; National Science Board, 2007), and substantial efforts and invest-
ment have been expended to bolster educational preparation to attract
and educate sufficient numbers of students to maintain America’s global
lead in technological fields (Carnevale, Smith, & Melton, 2011; Holdren
& Landren, 2012; National Science Board, 2012).
Despite this growing attention, the number of students moving through
the STEMM pipeline has been declining—even as 17 of the 20 fastest
growing occupations in 2014 will be health care related (U.S. Department
of Labor, 2007). Further, Gilbert and Jackson (2007) note, “While post-
secondary enrollment has increased over the past decade, the proportion
of students obtaining degrees in STEM fields has fallen” (p. 9). Recent
research further underscores the misalignment, finding that 60 percent
of new college students who expect to pursue a STEM major instead end
up graduating with a non-STEM degree (Holdren & Landren, 2012).
This expectation-reality gap is even more sharply revealed in the Medical
fields where many STEM degree holders gravitate, and where there is a
shortage of qualified professionals—most notably a 25,000 doctor short-
age in primary care medicine (Green, Savin, & Lu, 2013; Petterson et al.,
2012). These findings suggest a significant “leak” in the STEMM pipeline,
with many promising students failing to meet their own expectations, and
2
TCR, 117, 090305 Expectation’s Role in the Pipeline to STEMM
instead washing out, down the drain. Even more troubling are patterns of
underrepresentation; female students and students from lower socioeco-
nomic statuses are significantly underrepresented in many STEMM fields
which, in turn, limits their participation in well-paying, high-growth STEM
professions—including medicine (Malcom, Chubin, & Jesse, 2004; Stout,
Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011).
At the same time that policy makers have implemented initiatives to
increase students’ participation and interest in STEMM fields, research-
ers have sought to better understand the characteristics of students who
have successfully navigated the pipeline (e.g., Steffens, Jelenec, & Noack,
2010). Though many factors influence college-going, choice of major, and
success in college, research has shown high school students’ self-efficacy
and teacher and parental expectation to be significant factors that im-
pact initial postsecondary enrollment (Engberg & Wolniak, 2010), persis-
tence (Horn, Kojaku, & Carroll, 2001), and degree completion (Adelman,
2006). Much of the contemporary research into STEM specifically, how-
ever, has focused primarily on persistence and attainment among students
already within STEM degree programs (e.g., Espinosa, 2011; Wyer, 2003),
and has not factored in students’ high school experiences. Furthermore,
research examining the pipeline from high school-to-career typically fo-
cuses solely on STEM career attainment; this ignores the reality that many
students pursuing STEM degrees aspire to secure careers in (M)edicine
(Dienstag, 2008; Muller & Kase, 2010; Yens & Stimmel, 1982). Taken to-
gether, few studies have placed the relationships between high school
students’ self-efficacy in science and math—in conjunction with teacher
and parent expectation and encouragement—at the center of inquiry into
declaration of a STEMM major, completion of a STEMM degree, or even-
tual STEMM career attainment. Considering the fact that students often
begin thinking and forming ideas about potential college majors or career
choices well prior to entering college (National Research Council, 2009;
Riegle-Crumb, Moore, & Ramos-Wada, 2011), it is crucial to think about
the factors influencing students’ choices while in the secondary school set-
ting, arguably the first critical steps within the STEMM pipeline.
With this context in mind, we utilized logistic regression to investigate
these relationships longitudinally, tracing students’ decision-making path-
ways from high school through to successful degree attainment and ca-
reer choice in STEMM. We further propose a conceptual framework that
builds off of prior literature examining teachers’ expectations, parents’
expectations, and Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). We hypoth-
esize that a student’s STEMM efficacy and expectation to attend college,
in conjunction with the college expectations held by teachers and parents,
to be a good composite predictor of the likelihood a student enters and
3
completes a STEMM degree program as well as attaining a STEMM career.

Furthermore, reflecting research that has found significant gender dif-
ferences with respect to pursuit and attainment within STEMM, as well as
gender differences described in the literature on educational expectation,
we hypothesize the impact of self-efficacy and expectation of parents and
teachers to differ by gender. We used data from a nationally representative
survey, the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) 1987, to answer
the following questions:
1. What are the roles of self-efficacy in math and science and college
expectations in students’ likelihood to pursue a STEMM degree, at-
tainment of that degree, and entry into a STEMM career?
2. What are the roles of both teacher and parental educational expec-
tations in students’ intentions to pursue a STEMM degree, attain-
ment of that degree, and a STEMM career choice?
3. If the relationships outlined in Questions 1 and 2 are significant, are
they moderated substantially by a student’s gender?
Literature Review
Introduction
In the review that follows, we begin by describing relevant background on

STEMM education, specifically highlighting findings that have informed
our understanding of the dynamic characteristics within this critical con-
text. We then move on to what research has revealed about students’ vo-
cational and educational choices and what is known about specific factors
associated with these choices in STEMM fields. Next, we detail the theo-
retical construct of SCCT and illustrate how it has been used to inform
inquiry into similar contexts. Following this, we analyze the expectation
literature and report findings from studies on both parental and teacher
expectations and how they affect students. Finally, throughout this review,
we draw attention to research that explores gender differences that have
been revealed in each of the aforementioned domains of literature.
STEM(M) Education
Coupled with medicine (M), the STEMM fields are the fastest growing
occupational group in the United States (Carnevale et al., 2011; Solberg,
Kimmel, & Miller, 2012). STEMM fields have fueled the United States’
global economic leadership and innovation for decades and have be-
come a central research focus for many. While the bodies of literature on
education and careers in STEM and (M)edicine have been traditionally
4
segregated, there has recently been a growing realization they should be

considered together (Miller & Solberg, 2012). This new understanding
stems, in part, because pathways to medical disciplines and traditional
STEM fields share many similarities —few colleges, for example, offer pre-
med degrees, and many students pursuing traditionally designated STEM
majors in college may—in fact—be pursuing STEMM majors. That is, a
student majoring in biochemistry is more than likely pre-med (Fuchs &
Miller, 2012; Miller & Kimmel, 2012; Pearson & Miller, 2012). Little re-
search has taken this reality into account, and moreover, without adequate
information about career outcomes beyond the college years, distinguish-
ing between STEM and STEMM with respect to college degree programs
can be a difficult. Still, acknowledging the historic division that is reflected
in the bodies of literature describing STEM and Medicine research, we
begin our review with the research exploring STEM that has helped to
guide this study.
Notwithstanding a real or artificial partition between STEM and
STEMM, industrial, educational, and political leaders have called for
the recruitment and retention of large numbers of students from diverse
backgrounds and with diverse interests in order to maintain and improve
the nation’s competitiveness in STEM fields (Malcom et al., 2004). STEM
fields, including (M)edicine have long experienced challenges in increas-
ing the recruitment and retention of high competency students, instead
experiencing what has been termed “brain drain” (Hossain & Robinson,
2012; Tyson, Lee, Borman, & Hanson, 2007). Despite a decade of high de-
mand, the supply of STEM students has declined, resulting in shortages of
skilled STEM workers (Carnevale et al., 2011; U.S. Department of Labor,
2007). In response, scholars have emphasized the development of a strong
STEM pipeline from K–12 schools, since students build and develop their
initial interests during their precollege years (Engberg & Wolniak, 2010;
Leaper, Farkas, & Brown, 2012). Early introduction to math and science
during primary and secondary school has been shown to help students
gain and build motivation and aspiration toward STEM fields, making stu-
dents’ K–12 experiences critical in their decisions to pursue STEM fields
in college and beyond (Archer et al., 2013; Crisp, Nora, & Taggart, 2009).
Research has shown, for example, how college students’ perceptions and
conceptual understanding of physics were linked to their experiences in
high school physics classes, including the encouragement they felt from
their teachers (Enyedy, Goldberg, & Welsh, 2006; Hazari, Sonnert, Sadler,
& Shanahan 2010).
Enlarging the context beyond students’ K–12 and precollege experienc-
es, research has identified factors affecting students’ decisions to pursue
STEM degrees in college, including state graduation requirements, high
5
school course offerings, and choice of a technical focus (e.g., Federman,

2007; Maple & Stage, 1991; Trusty, 2002). More recently, Wang (2012) has
categorized many of the factors that positively influence students’ choic-
es to enter and complete a STEM degree. These include: early exposure
and proficiency in math and science (Anderson & Kim, 2006; Hagedorn
& DuBray, 2010); high school curricula (Elliott, Strenta, Adair, Matier, &
Scott, 1996; Hazari et al., 2010); parental education (Grauca, Ethington,
& Pascarella, 1988; Sonnert, 2009); amount of math and science complet-
ed during high school (e.g., Ethington & Woffle, 1988; Maple & Stage,
1991); and advanced courses in math and science (Robinson, 2003; Tyson
et al., 2007). Other research has identified factors that militate against
continuation in STEMM fields during college including opaque pedagogi-
cal approaches, lack of learner support, and an uninviting environment in
key gateway courses (Barr, Matsui, Wanat, & Gonzalez, 2009).
Whether positive or negative, research has also shown that the factors as-
sociated with students’ decisions to pursue STEM degrees, as well as their
STEM major retention, can vary substantially across students’ character-
istics (Hanson, 2004; John, Hu, Simmons, Carter, & Weber, 2004; Trusty,
2002). Previous studies on inequities and disparities in STEM major
choice and retention have focused, in particular, on gender differences
(e.g., Espinosa, 2011; Wyer, 2003). Specifically, females have traditionally
been marginalized in STEM fields with too few pursuing the fields dur-
ing their postsecondary education (Blickenstaff, 2005; Kamerasde, 2007).
More importantly, being less likely to complete a STEM degree, fewer
women will secure a STEM career (National Science Foundation, 2009;
Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). These gender disparities have contributed over
the long term to women having fewer positive opportunities in STEM pro-
fessions as compared to their male counterparts (Kamerasde, 2007). What
is more, disparities of representation are evident in the pursuit of a pre-
medicine track as well; traditionally underrepresented ethnic and racial
minorities, as well as females, are less likely to continue through to the end
and emerge from the STEMM pipeline (Barr et al., 2009).
Using stereotype threat theory, research has found that gender stereo-
types are an important factor in the dropout rate of female students within
math-intensive fields (Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009; Steffens et
al., 2010). In addition, research has found such disparities to be more
closely related to environmental factors than to an individual’s personal-
ity traits or characteristics (Gunderson, Ramirez, Levine, & Beilock, 2012;
Tiedemann, 2000). Specifically, Gunderson et al. (2012) argued that a
female’s attitude toward math can be influenced by the expectations com-
municated by parents and teachers. Studies have shown that parents shape
and influence female students’ perception of math and science subjects as
6
well as their pursuit of careers in those fields (Jodl, Michael, Malanchuk,

Eccles, & Sameroff, 2001; Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2003). Other studies
have identified factors associated with a female’s attitude toward math and
science, revealing that teachers’ levels of expectation are highly related to
female students’ perception of the fields. Bodzin and Gehringer (2001)
found that one reason why women too frequently exhibit low expectations
and competence in these domains is because school curricula and teach-
ers’ expectations often assume male competence and female disinterest
in math and science. As a result of these stereotypes females were less
likely to choose majors and careers in STEM (Davies, Spencer, Quinn, &
Gerhardstein, 2002).
Despite a growing body of research describing the myriad factors that
influence whether or not a student chooses a STEM or broader STEMM
major, few studies have examined the lasting effect of those factors—an
approach that necessarily requires longitudinal data and analysis of high
school, college, and—in particular—career contexts. To inform an ap-
proach that incorporates factors influencing career (and therefore ma-
jor) choice across a longitudinal context, we next turn to Social Cognitive
Career Theory (SCCT).
Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)
Prior research has demonstrated that individuals’ self-efficacy and out-

come expectations are critical influences on the effort they expend on
a range of activities (Bandura, 1986; Pajares & Schunk, 2002). Building
off of Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1986), the tenets of Social
Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) enlarge
and enrich the applicable context by incorporating self-efficacy and out-
come expectations into a coherent theory tailored to career-decision situ-
ations, including school choices prior to employment.
When applied to real-world contexts, SCCT suggests that individuals
develop interest in those career activities in which they feel efficacious
or perceive themselves as more competent, and for which they expect
positive outcomes (Bandura, 1986; Lent et al., 1994). The first tenet of
the theory, self-efficacy, affects the effort people expend on career-re-
lated activities such as education, perseverance when confronting ob-
stacles, and resiliency when facing challenges (Bandura, 1977; Pajares
& Schunk, 2002). Among scholars who study it, self-efficacy is most
commonly defined as encompassing people’s beliefs in their own per-
sonal abilities to achieve goals or others desired outcomes (Diegelman
& Subich, 2001). More specifically, self-efficacy is expressed in the de-
gree of confidence people feel about executing specifically delineated
7
tasks (Coopersmith, 1967). This definition stands in contrast to the

more general self-esteem, which instead reflects a personal measure
of self worth or value that is un-tethered to specific actions one might
perform (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Prior research has also demon-
strated strong relationships between self-efficacy and the effort people
expend on career-related activities such as education, perseverance
when confronting obstacles, and resiliency when facing challenges
(Bandura, 1977; Pajares & Schunk, 2002).
Where self-efficacy focuses on perceptions of ability, outcome expecta-
tions, the second component of SCCT, refers to an individual’s outlook or
perceptions concerning the likely results of his or her effort(s) toward a
specific end (Bandura, 1986). Research has also shown that beliefs about
one’s outcomes in specific activities influence academic and career choice
behaviors (Bandura, 1986; Lent et al., 1994). Furthermore, according to
SCCT, individuals develop interest in those career activities in which they
feel efficacious, perceive themselves as more competent, and for which
they expect positive outcomes (Bandura, 1986; Lent et al., 1994). In short,
SCCT hypothesizes that both self-efficacy and outcome expectations influ-
ence educational and vocational choices, as well as success—both directly
and indirectly (Lent et al., 1994).
In addition to self-efficacy and outcome expectations, individual and
contextual traits including gender (Lent & Brown, 1996), socioeconomic
status (Howard et al., 2011; Trusty, Robinson, Plata, & Ng, 2000) and ed-
ucation level (Bandura, 1977, 1997) can each influence career interest,
choice, and performance. Gender, especially, seems to affect the learning
experiences and feedback to which a person is exposed, and SCCT pro-
vides a powerful lens through which to view the psychological and social
effects of gender on education and career interests (Evans & Diekman,
2009; Lent & Brown, 1996, 2006; Schaub & Tokar, 2005). Research has
also demonstrated ways both parent and teacher attitudes about gender
roles can affect girls and boys differently, can directly influence girls’
career-related self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interest in “tradi-
tionally male” fields such as many in the STEM domain (Gunderson et
al., 2012; Rosser, 2004; Shapiro & Williams, 2012) and Medicine (Bickel,
2001). SCCT suggests that gender’s influence on career interest, choice,
and performance operates largely through self-efficacy and outcome ex-
pectations and the gendered learning experiences that shape students’
beliefs (Lent et al., 1994).
SCCT has been increasingly used as a theoretical lens to guide investi-
gation of STEM field choice (Lent et al., 1994; Lent, Brown, & Hackett,
2000; Usher & Pajares, 2009; Wang, 2012, 2013; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000).
Researchers have found a strong association between students’ efficacy
8
and expectation and their interest and success in STEM fields (Byars-
Winston & Fouad, 2008; Hackett & Betz, 1989; Pajares, 2005; Wang,
2012, 2013).
While SCCT provides a powerful lens in the aforementioned contexts,
its explanatory power is derived from the way it successfully leverages ex-
pectation to explain behavior within a defined context. We now turn to
what research has revealed about how expectation influence help to shape
students’ decisions.
Expectations of Teachers and Parents
A student’s educational and vocational choices are not only influenced

by individual personality traits or characteristics but also by parents and
teachers, both of whom are powerful influences on a child’s environment
and education. Children spend a large amount of time both at home and
in school, and their interaction with parents and teachers significantly
mediates their educational experiences (Hill & Tyson, 2009) and helps
form their academic attitudes, aspirations, and motivations (Chirkov &
Ryan, 2001; Gunderson et al., 2012). It is no surprise, then, that numerous
studies have pointed out the critical roles of parents and teachers play in
students’ future planning including educational and vocational choices
(Perry, Liu, & Pabian, 2010).
One influential study of expectation by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968),
“Pygmalion in the classroom,” examined how teachers’ expectations and
behavior may accelerate or prevent a student from meeting his or her true
potential revealed how teachers frequently behave differently towards dif-
ferent students, based on individual expectations (Brophy & Good, 1970).
Teachers may create a warmer climate, build more intimate relationships,
and give differential feedback to students for whom they hold higher ex-
pectations (Rosenthal, 1994). Ferguson (1998) further found that teach-
ers typically develop these kinds of expectations based on students’ prior
performance, race, ethnicity, gender, or social class. These expectations,
positive or negative, can affect students’ academic behavior and perfor-
mance in the classroom (Brophy & Good, 1970), including in math and
science where early positive performance is critical to a student’s success
within the STEMM disciplines (Crisp et al., 2009).
Studies since “Pygmalion” have continued to show how teacher expec-
tations and encouragement in classroom situations can be linked both
positive and negative student performance (Babad, 1993; Brophy, 1983;
Cooper & Good, 1983; Good, 1987; Weinstein, 2002). Even after control-
ling for students’ prior performance, for example, research has shown
teachers’ expectations to predict gains in student achievement across
9
disciplines (Frome, Lasater, & Cooney, 2005; Muller, Katz, & Dance, 1999).
Furthermore, teacher expectations have been shown to influence students’
academic performance and long-term educational goals like college (Benner
& Mistry, 2007; Mistry, White, Benner, & Huynh, 2009; Rubie-Davies, Hattie,
& Hamilton, 2006), and Mistry et al. (2009) found teacher’s expectations to
have a longer lasting effect on achievement than parent expectations. In par-
ticular, studies have shown that expectation and encouragement from math
and science teachers each have strong positive correlation with students’
academic success and pursuit of STEM degrees (Heaverlo, 2011). Research
has further shown that math and science teachers can play a critical role in
increasing the interest and motivation of underrepresented students in math
and science —essential precursors to the pursuit of higher education and
careers in STEM fields (e.g., Shumow & Schmidt, 2013).
While extensive research has explored the relationship between teacher
expectations and outcomes within the elementary school setting (e.g.,
Babad, 1998; Good & Weinstein, 1986; Weinstein, 2002), relatively little re-
search has examined the effects of secondary school teachers’ expectation
and encouragement on college degree choice or completion. Without
substantive evidence in the more general case, options are limited for con-
clusions that can be drawn within the specific STEMM context.
As with teachers, prior research on parent expectation has concluded
that parental expectations can affect student outcomes—directly through
parent–child interactions, and indirectly through parental beliefs and
their own perceived efficacy in providing academic support to their chil-
dren (Benner & Mistry, 2007; Catsambis, 2001; Wentzel, 1998). Ma (2001)
found that parents’ expectations regarding college had more of an effect
on students than either teacher or peer expectations. Even when control-
ling for factors such as socioeconomic status and academic achievement,
Trusty, Plata, and Salazar (2003) found parental expectations had the
greatest influence on enrollment in college while Brasier (2008) found
parental expectation to be consistently important in students’ decisions to
pursue post-secondary education. Furthermore, the influence of parental
expectations appears to have a cumulative effect over time (Bleeker &
Jacobs, 2004). Finally, aspirations in math and science-related areas do not
appear to be shaped by coincidence or chance, but are instead influenced,
in large part, by familial attitudes, especially those of parents (Archer et
al., 2012). Parental expectation in math and science have also been shown
to influences students’ academic and vocational choices as well as math
and science efficacy; each is also highly correlated with students’ advance-
ment in STEM(M) (Hou & Leung, 2011).
Recent literature has transitioned from using the “expectations” syn-
onymously with “aspirations”(De Civita, Pagani, Vitaro, & Tremblay, 2004;
10
Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001). While parental expecta-

tions have been shown to have a positive relationship with educational as-
pirations (Benner & Mistry, 2007; Catsambis, 2001), it is important to dis-
tinguish between the two. In this context, aspirations consist of the most
possible and desired options available; expectations are the most likely out-
comes (Gottfredson, 1981; Markus & Nurius, 1986). The distinction relates
to choice, and expectations are more realistic than aspirations. Expectations
are formed through reflection over past performances, and therefore make
better indicators of attainment than aspirations (Andres, Adamuti-Trache,
Yoon, Pidgeon, & Thomsen, 2007). This contrast may be critical with re-
spect to STEMM career aspirations and attainment and implicate expecta-
tion as a potentially robust predictor of success within the STEMM domain.
Yet despite prior understanding of linkages between teacher and pa-
rental expectations and student achievement and college aspirations, few
studies have placed those relationships at the center of inquiry specifically
into STEMM degree or career attainment. Fewer still have examined ways
in which both parental and teacher educational expectations (Benner &
Mistry, 2007), together with a student’s own educational expectation and
sense of efficacy in math and science can affect students’ pursuit of de-
grees or careers in STEMM fields. This omission in the research record is
surprising given the potential of expectation and efficacy to help illumi-
nate the poorly understood dynamics of STEMM major choice, comple-
tion, and career obtainment. At the same time it presents an opportunity
to develop better models for understanding an academic and economic
domain of high demand that is marked, unfortunately, by equally high at-
trition. Efficacy and expectation are measures all students share, and they
are formed far earlier than college matriculation. New understanding of
their to the success of students within the STEMM fields can likely lead to
policies that are more effective than what has yet been tried and address
growing needs in this critical area.
To guide investigation of our research questions, we propose a concep-
tual framework that builds on teacher and parent educational expecta-
tion theory as well as SCCT theory. Although SCCT incorporates three
broad theoretical strands—self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and per-
sonal goals—this study focuses on the combination of self-efficacy and
outcome expectations, the pairing of which is critical to understanding
student’s educational and vocational choices in STEMM. Further, cur-
rent research also suggests that student expectation and efficacy interact
consistently with, and change, based on teacher and parent encourage-
ment and expectation (Benner & Mistry, 2007; Mistry et al., 2009; Wang,
2012, 2013). This study hypothesizes that experiencing higher levels of
expectation from parents and teachers to pursue college, in conjunction
11
with a students’ self-efficacy in math and science to be good predictors of

increased entrance into STEMM degree programs, completion of those
degrees, and attainment of STEMM careers.
Still, considering the persistent inequities and disparities with respect
to gender representation in STEM(M) fields (Barr et al., 2009; Espinosa,
2011), it is unrealistic to assume that both parents and teachers demon-
strate the same levels of expectation to pursue STEM(M) fields irrespec-
tive of student gender. To wit, previous research has explored gender’s
differences in the pursuit and completion of STEM(M) education. While
such research, guided by stereotype threat theory (Steffens et al., 2010),
has explored how parental expectation, as well as teacher expectation of-
ten differ by gender (Bodzin & Gehringer, 2001; Tenenbaum & Leaper,
2003) little research has considered their impacts in tandem. Thus, we hy-
pothesize that male and female students each experience different levels
of expectation to pursue college from their parents and teachers. These
expectations, as a result, influence students’ choices to enter into STEMM
degree programs, complete those degrees, and attain STEMM careers.
METHODS
Data
The study’s data are from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth
(LSAY) designed by the Institute for Social Research at the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor. The LSAY is a national 6-year panel study of mathe-
matics and science education in public middle and high schools. Data col-
lection began in fall of 1987 by surveying seventh and 10th grade students
(younger cohort and elder cohort, respectively) as well as their parents,
teachers, and school administrators at public schools across the United
States. The original 7-year data collection period ended in 1994 when the
elder cohort was 4 years out of high school and the younger cohort was
one year out of high school. The LSAY’s 5,945 respondents consist of 3,116
seventh graders (younger cohort) and 2,829 10th graders (elder cohort).
Descriptively, LSAY participants include 3,026 males (50.9%) and 2,919 fe-
males (49.1%), as well as 4,122 White students (74.2%) and 1,432 non-White
students (25.8%). More than a half of the participant’s parents (55.1%) had
obtained a maximal level of education of high school or less, 14.6% had
received some college education, and 30.3% earned a BA degree or higher.
Annual data collection resumed in 2007 with a proportional sample of the
original study cohorts and participants’ educational and occupational ac-
tivities from high school through to their early 30s were captured. Of the
original LSAY participants, 3,574 completed the follow-up survey in 2007, or
approximately 70% of the original sample (Miller & Kimmel, 2012).
12
SAMPLE
The study utilizes data from the elder LSAY cohort1 (n = 2,829) and fo-
cuses on the 1,776 students who entered college and completed the follow
up career survey in 2007. The combination of LSAY’s two survey tranches
allowed us to examine relationships between students’ high school experi-
ences and, in turn, their college and career choices. Analysis began with
LSAY participants who matriculated into college, was refined to include
only those who declared STEMM majors, was refined again to further fo-
cus on STEMM graduates, and converging finally on those students who
has secured a STEMM career.
Though this approach naturally caused our sample size to decline at
each stage of analysis, it also placed us directly (though metaphorically)
inside the pipeline along with those who had persisted, allowing us to
focus directly on the students whose experiences could address the ques-
tions posed by our study. This procedure identified those students who
“survived” the pipeline, enabling us to analyze how the effects of students’
self-efficacy, expectation, as well as expectation from teachers and par-
ents during the high school years lasted throughout the STEMM pipeline.
Simply put, we identified and focused on the “persisters” rather than oth-
ers who had leaked out along the way.
The presence of missing data from individual cases, as with even the
highest quality data sets, was unavoidable and had a requisite effect on
the sample sizes available for our analysis time points. During the first year
of college, for example, 415 of the original 1,776 students had selected
STEMM majors while 1,324 pursued non-STEMM options. Data were com-
pletely unavailable for 37 students. With respect to the bachelor’s degree
completion, 239 of the 1,776 students received a STEMM degree, while
1,513 students completed non-STEMM options. Data were unavailable at
this time point for 24 students. Finally, 231 of the original 1,776 students
selected and secured a STEMM-related career, while 1,544 students either
selected a non-STEMM career or were not represented in the workforce.
The data for only 1 student were unavailable.
We examined the selected cases for missing values of which varying
degrees were found on a number of independent variables. Analysis re-
vealed, however, that with the exception of the student ethnicity variable
where 7.2% of students’ information was missing, no other variables ex-
ceeded more than 5% missing values. In order to begin addressing the
challenges presented by missing cases, we conducted Little’s “Missing
Completely at Random” (MCAR) test (1988), which returned a “signifi-
cant” outcome. This result suggests that the missing values in the data set
are not at random.
13
To then compensate for these missing values when estimating the lo-
gistic regression models in our analysis, we employed a list wise deletion
method. In other words, only whole, intact cases with no missing variables
were included during the final analysis. Although list wise deletion re-
duces the final number of cases available for inclusion in modeling, as
evaluated against other accepted practices for dealing with missing data
it is both powerful and tolerant in analyses with nonrandom missing cas-
es. Furthermore, its application is particularly appropriate with respect
to missing values on independent variables within logistic regression es-
timation (Allison, 2002). Still, any procedure used to help mitigate the
ill effects of missing data can bias estimates, reduce statistical power, and
should be considered holistically when interpreting the results of analyses
such as those presented in this study.
After examining all of our sample’s cases for the presence of missing val-
ues, we calculated that 242 (12.63%) were missing individual observations
at the first year of college time point, 242 (13.64%) at college completion,
and 246 missing (13.87%) at the career choice time point.
Table 1. Student Demographic Information (N = 1,776)
N Percentage
GENDER
Female 905 50.9
Male 871 49.1
Total 1,776 100
RACE
Hispanic 124 7.6
Black 157 9.6
White 1,287 72.4
Other 79 4.8
Total 1,648 92.7
Missing 128 7.3
PARENT EDUCATION LEVEL
High school or less 937 52.8
Some college 240 13.6
BA or higher 599 33.7
Total 1,776 100
14
Measures
This section summarizes the information of the variables included in this

study. Table 2 lists the names, descriptions, and LSAY labels of all variables
that were used. Although LSAY’s postsecondary education variables such
as quality of program or the number of math and science courses taken
in college may provide meaningful information about a student’s reten-
tion in STEMM, we focused exclusively on secondary education variables
to examine the influence of self-efficacy and expectation, as well as the
expectation and encouragement received from high school teachers and
parents, on students’ decisions to major in, complete a degree, and pur-
sue a career in STEMM.
Outcome Variables
In order to capture the relationships between these various factors and

students’ choices to persist at critical time points throughout the STEMM
pipeline, this study utilizes three dependent variables as follow: declared
STEMM major during first year of college, STEMM degree attainment,
and employment in a STEMM field.
Student Demographic Background Measures
Gender and race variables were included in our analysis. We created dum-
my variables for racial groups including variables for Black and Hispanic.
A student’s socioeconomic status was determined using his or her parents’
education level as a proxy.
College Encouragement and Expectation Variables
The study includes two independent “college expectation” variables that

measure the levels of expectation students experienced from both their’
parents and high school teachers. The “teacher’s college expectation”
variable measures how much students perceived their high school science
and math teachers as supporting or expecting them to go to college. The
“parents’ college expectation” variable measures the degree to which par-
ents reported encouraging or pushing their children toward college. In
both cases, high values indicate high level of expectation or encourage-
ment, while low values indicate low levels of expectation. The study also
includes a “student educational expectations” variable that captures the
level of education students expected themselves to achieve. The mean
value of each was used to center the variables and account for the differ-
ing scales used to measure expectation of parents, teachers, and students.
15
Math and Science Efficacy Variables
The study includes the independent variables “math efficacy and “sci-
ence efficacy.” Each measures students’ perceptions of how confident
they are about their performance in math and science. The study fo-
cuses on math and science efficacy, in particular, because those subjects
have been shown to have a greater impact on (or be directly linked to)
students’ educational and vocational choices with respect to STEM(M)-
related fields (Webb, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2002). More specifically, LSAY
items measuring students’ perceptions of “being good at math” and of
“understanding math well” were combined to create a composite math
efficacy variable. Students’ perceptions of “being good at science” and of
“understanding science well” were combined to create a corresponding
science efficacy variable.
Interaction Terms
In order to explore whether relationships between efficacy, expectation,

and participants’ persistence in STEMM varies across gender groups, we
utilized several interaction variables. We analyzed the interaction effects of
gender against variables measuring parent and teacher expectation that
students go to college.
DATA ANALYSIS
As this study employs dichotomous dependent variables to indicate

whether or not students persisted through each time point to a STEMM
major or career, we employed binary logistic regression to test our mod-
els. We investigated students’ decision making at three separate, but
distinct, times along a typical STEMM education/career path by con-
ducting six logistic regression analyses to predict students’ persistence
in the STEMM pipeline based on the independent variables included
in the study. The structure of the LSAY survey data necessitated the use
of analytic weights to better represent the original population (Miller
& Kimmel, 2012). The weights adjusted each respondent’s differential
probability of being selected into the sample, and all estimates were cal-
culated from statistical weights using the “WEIGHTR” variable provided
with the LSAY data set.
The analysis proceeded in several steps, beginning with descriptive sta-
tistics for all variables. The statistics for selected participants of LSAY’s
elder cohort are presented in Table 3.
16
Table 2. List of Variables in the Study
Variable Name Description LSAY Label
Dependent Variables
College Major Respondent’s choice in STEMM in the 2nd semester at college. 1=yes, 0=no RMAJFIRST2
College Completion Respondent’s college completion in STEMM. 1=yes, 0=no RMAJLAST2
Career Field Respondent’s entrance into STEMM career. 1=yes, 0=no RSTEMMB
Demographic Variables
Male 1=Male, 0=Female Recoded from GENDER
Black 1=Black, 0=Non-Black Recoded from RACE
Hispanic 1=Hispanic, 0=Non-Hispanic Recoded from RACE
Parents’ education level Parents’ Highest Level of Education PEDUC
17
Items based on five-point scales with 1 indicating “LT HS diploma”, 2 indicating “HS
diploma”, 3 indicating “Some college”, 4 indicating “4 year college degree”, and 5 indicating
“Advanced degree”
Independent Variables
Student expectation Student educational expectation during high school (mean-centered) SEDEXHS
Items based on six-point scales with 1 indicating “High School only”, 2 indicating “Vocational
training”, 3 indicating “Some college”, 4 indicating “Baccalaureate”, 5 indicating “Masters”, 6
indicating “Doctorate or Professional Degree”
Parental expectation Parent expectation to go to college during high school (mean-centered) PCOPHHS
Items based on four-point scales with 1 indicating “do not Main push to go to college” and 5

indicating “strongly push to go to college”
Teacher expectation High school teachers’ (math and science) college expectation (mean-centered) TCOEXHS
Items based on 2-point scales with 1 indicating “Doesn’t expect college” and 2 indicating

“Expects college”
Table 2. List of Variables in the Study (continued)
Variable Name Description LSAY Label
Math efficacy - I am good at math GA32B, IA37B, KA46B
- Understand math well GA32C, IA37C, KA46C
Items based on five-point scales with 1 indicating “strongly agree” and 5 indicating

“strongly disagree”
Science efficacy - I am good at science GA33B, IA38B, KA47B
- Understand science well GA33C, IA38C, KA47C
Items based on five-point scales with 1 indicating “strongly agree” and 5 indicating

“strongly disagree”
Interaction Terms
Gender X Teacher
18
Male X Teacher expectation GENDER, TCOEXHS
expectation
Gender X Parental
Male X Parental expectation GENDER, PCOPHHS
expectation
Table 3. Descriptive Data for Participants (N = 1,776)

Variables Range Mean SD
Gender
Male 0~1 0.51 0.5
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic 0~1 0.07 0.26
Black 0~1 0.1 0.3
Family Background
Parents’ Education Level 1~5 2.91 1.22
Student Academic Efficacy

Math Efficacy 1~5 3.51 0.89
Science Efficacy 1~5 3.44 0.88
Educational Expectation
Student Expectation -3~2 0.26 1.39
Parental Expectation -1.98~2.02 0.13 1.05
Teacher Expectation -1.31~4.69 0.38 1.89
We then conducted correlation tests to check for multicollinearity be-

tween independent variables (see Table 4). Results indicate that student
educational expectation, parent expectation, and teacher expectation are
positively associated with one another as well as with student math and sci-
ence efficacy. Moreover, student math and science efficacy are positively
associated with each other as well. As all variables exhibited low to mod-
erate correlations (from .07 to .51), we were able to eliminate problems
related to multicollinearity (Kline, 2005).
19
Table 4. Correlations Between the Independent Variables
Student Parental Teacher Math Science

expectation expectation expectation efficacy efficacy
1
Student expectation
.51** 1
Parental expectation
.45** .34** 1
Teacher expectation
.13** .07** .24** 1

Math efficacy
.27** .16** .28** .23** 1

Science efficacy

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Finally, we tested the six models to answer each of the research ques-
tions. The aim of this study was to first examine the relationship between
a student’s self-efficacy and expectation, as well as teacher and parent ex-
pectation, and his or her decision to choose a STEMM major by the sec-
ond semester of college (Model 1), complete a STEMM degree in college
(Model 2), and attain a STEMM career (Model 3).
To explore our additional research questions concerning whether ex-
pectations from teachers and parents are moderated by gender, we exam-
ined interplay between these factors by including the interaction terms
for gender and teacher expectation, as well as those of gender and parent
expectation in the analyses. By including these interaction terms we could
examine how personal efficacy and expectation, as well as teacher and
parent expectation differ across gender and consequently affect students’
decisions to choose a STEMM major by the second semester of college
(Model 4), completion of a STEMM degree (Model 5), and attainment of
a STEMM career (Model 6).
Result
Table 5 presents results of logistic regression analyses for the elder cohort
at the time of high school graduation. Analysis reveals that, from among
the potential factors, measures of students’ science efficacy and teacher
expectation turn out to have lasting effect on whether a student will de-
clare a STEMM major during the first year of college, complete a STEMM
20
Table 5. Logistic Regression Coefficients (SE) and ORs for Students’ STEMM Major/Career Choice (N = 1,776)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B)
Constant 2.899*** 0.055 -5.298*** 0.000 -6.64*** 0.001 -2.84*** 0.058 -5.26*** 0.005 6.55*** 0.001
(0.42) (0.61) (0.82) (0.42) (0.62) (0.83)
Parents’ edu- -0.037 0.964 0.13 1.141 0.012 1.012 -0.04 0.960 0.133 1.142 0.013 1.013
cation level (0.056) (0.07) (0.09) (0.06) (0.07) (0.09)
Male 0.19 1.205 -0.03 .968 0.297 1.346 0.09 1.090 -0.29 0.752 0.101 1.106
(0.13) (0.18) (0.23) (0.14) (0.24) (0.337)
Student 0.27*** 1.310 0.39*** 1.483 0.23 1.254 0.28*** 1.317 0.41*** 1.499 0.229 1.257
expectation (0.06) (0.096) (0.12) (0.06) (0.09) (0.123)
Parental 0.04 1.042 0.21* 1.233 0.40** 1.497 0.16 1.179 0.476** 1.609 0.699** 2.013
expectation (0.07) (0.10) (0.14) (0.10) (0.147) (0.212)
21
Teacher 0.12** 1.128 0.18*** 1.199 0.23*** 1.263 -0.005 0.995 -0.023 0.977 0.035 1.035
expectation (0.04) (0.05) (0.06) (0.05) (0.07) (0.094)
Black 0.07 1.076 -0.63 0.533 -0.48 0.619 0.09 1.094 -0.614 0.541 -0.494 0.610
(0.21) (0.35) (0.43) (0.21) (0.35) (0.43)
Hispanic -0.001 1.001 0.078 1.081 0.054 1.055 -0.036 0.964 0.008 1.008 -0.018 0.982
(0.25) (0.37) (0.48) (0.26) (0.375) (0.48)
Math efficacy 0.12 1.123 0.15 1.157 0.27 1.316 0.12 1.121 0.145 1.157 0.277 1.319
(0.08) (0.11) (0.16) (0.08) (0.114) 0.16)
Science 0.34*** 1.400 0.51*** 1.663 0.60*** 1.822 0.34*** 1.398 0.51*** 1.667 0.59*** 1.805
efficacy (0.08) (0.12) (0.17) (0.08) (0.123) (0.17)
Gender X Teacher 0.24** 1.264 0.39*** 1.479 0.323** 1.382

expectation (0.07) (0.09) (0.116)
Gender X parental -0.25 0.782 -0.54** 0.585 -0.485 0.616
expectation (0.14) (0.199) (0.265)

degree, and choose a STEMM career after college. A student’s self-expec-

tation is revealed to predict his or her likelihood to pursue STEMM during
the first year of college, as well as complete a STEMM degree. In addition,
parent expectation, unlike teacher expectation, is a significant predictor
of a student’s likelihood to pursue STEMM at only two time points: com-
pletion of a STEMM degree and choice of a STEMM field career.
Models 1–3
To be specific, while controlling for their background characteristics

(parents’ education level, ethnicity, and gender), students who reported
higher levels of teacher expectation are 1.13 times more likely to choose
a STEMM major during the first year of college (p < .01), 1.20 times more
likely to complete a STEMM degree (p < .001), and 1.26 times more likely
to enter a STEMM profession (p < .001) than students who reported lower
levels of educational expectation from their teachers.
In addition, students with higher degrees of self-expectation are 1.31
times more likely to choose a STEMM major in the first year of college
(p < .001) and 1.48 times more likely to complete a degree in STEMM (p
< .001) than students with lower self-expectation. Furthermore, students
with higher science efficacy are 1.40 times more likely to choose a STEMM
major during the first year of college (p < .001), 1.66 times more likely
to complete a college degree in STEMM (p < .001), and 1.82 times more
likely to enter a STEMM profession (p < .001) than students with lower
science efficacy. While parental expectation was not revealed to have a sig-
nificant predictive relationship with students’ choices of STEMM majors
during the first year of college, students with high parental expectation
are 1.23 times more likely to earn a STEMM degree (p < .05) and 1.50
times more likely to choose a STEMM career (p < .01).
Models 4–6
Inclusion of interaction variables in the analysis reveals that when con-

trolling for average parental expectation, male students are overall more
likely to be affected by their teacher’s expectations than female students
with respect to pursuing STEMM at each point in time. Conversely, when
controlling for average teacher expectation, male students are less likely
to be affected by their parent’s expectation than female students when
considering degree completion in STEMM.
More specifically, when controlling for average parental expectation,
male students are 1.26 times more likely to choose a STEMM major dur-
ing the first year of college (p < .01), 1.48 times more likely to have earned
a STEMM degree at graduation (p < .001), and 1.38 times more likely to
22
enter a STEMM profession (p < .01) than female students who reported
similar levels of teacher expectation. Further, when controlling for average
teacher expectation, the parental expectation reported by male students’
amounted to about 54% the magnitude of that reported by females. In
comparison, when male students are used as the reference group to con-
duct the same analysis, female students are revealed to be 1.7 times more
likely to earn a degree in STEMM (p < .01) than male students.
DISCUSSION
Analysis of our models addresses several important aspects of how teacher

and parent expectation affect students’ pursuit of STEMM education and
careers. In addition, the models also reveal interesting differences in the
way a students’ gender interacts with expectation as students explore a
future in STEMM. Discussion of these results follows.
Importance of Teacher and Parent Expectation
Expectation clearly matters for students pursuing STEMM. Consistent

with prior research showing the substantial influence teachers have on
students’ long-term educational goals and vocational choices (de Boer,
Bosker, & van der Werf, 2010; Rubie-Davies, 2010), our findings show that
teacher expectation does, in fact, affect students’ choice of major and de-
gree completion in STEMM. Building upon this, our findings uniquely
show that in addition to influencing their key academic decisions with
respect to STEMM, teacher expectation also has a lasting effect on stu-
dents’ vocational choices within STEMM fields. Where prior studies have
illustrated this relationship generically, our findings illustrate the power of
teacher expectation specifically within the STEMM domain.
Taking all the results into account, by implication, this suggests that
teachers can boost students’ interest in pursuing STEMM, specifically,
by both having and communicating high expectations for their students.
In light of this finding, efforts to boost positive teacher expectation dur-
ing secondary education represent a promising approach to promoting
greater student interest, completion, and pursuit of careers in STEMM
fields. What is more, of the limited levers available to policy makers,
those contained within the classroom setting may prove the most trac-
table and implementable.
Parental expectation has also long been shown to be influential in stu-
dents’ educational and general vocational choices (Hou & Leung, 2011;
Sawitri, Creed, & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2013). In alignment with this re-
search, we found parental expectation to play a significant role in shaping
students’ degree completion and career attainment in STEMM. This study
23
confirms and builds upon that understanding by focusing specifically on

students with interest in STEMM domains, finding that those experienc-
ing higher levels of parental expectation in high school are not only more
likely to complete STEMM degrees but that the effects of expectation are
lasting and influential through to students’ attainment of STEMM careers.
These results illustrate how teacher and parental expectation can have
a positive and lasting effect on students’ decisions to enter into STEMM
fields including the choice of a STEMM related career post-college, in
advancing our understanding of how these critical influences impact
students, in relation to one another. More specifically, while previous re-
search has shown that teachers and parents can each play a prominent
role in framing student academic and career choices, scant research has
compared their relative impacts with respect to STEMM specifically. By
utilizing a longitudinal approach, this study has shown that even though
both sources of expectation play a vital role in students’ decisions, teach-
ers’ expectations have a longer lasting impact on students. This finding is
in keeping with prior literature suggesting that educational expectations
are one of the best predictors of subsequent degree completions (e.g.,
Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004).2
Importance of Self-Expectation and Efficacy
In alignment with prior research drawing on SCCT, this study has shown
student self-expectation and efficacy to be important factors in a student’s
choice of major and degree completion (Lent et al., 1994). The findings
of this study confirm and extend this understanding by showing that stu-
dents with higher levels of self-efficacy and expectation in math and the
sciences, specifically, were more likely to pursue and secure education and
a career in STEMM. Using SCCT as a theoretical lens to guide this study
has offered additional empirical evidence of how students’ self-efficacy
and expectation affect their likelihood to enter into and persist within
postsecondary education, and further expand that understanding to rel-
evance within the STEMM–specific domain.
While prior scholarship has emphasized the usefulness of math efficacy
as an important variable in predicting success in STEMM (e.g., Marra,
Rodgers, Shen, & Bogue, 2009; Williams & Williams, 2010), this study has
uniquely found science efficacy to be a more powerful predictor. This in-
sight may prove meaningful at a time when education reform more fre-
quently emphasizes math performance than science or other measures
(Dee & Jacob, 2011). To increase the likelihood that students pursue
educational opportunities and careers in STEMM, it is crucial to provide
them with adequate exposure to science in classes that build their sense of
24
self-efficacy around science. Results from this study show how students’ at-
titudes toward science can predict whether they choose to pursue or com-
plete a degree in STEMM, thus highlighting the importance of cultivating
students’ positive attitudes toward science from early on.
Gender Differences in Pathways to STEMM
Previous studies exploring expectation and STEM have generally em-

phasized the lack of encouragement and support both teachers and par-
ents have “traditionally” shown female students in math and sciences. As
a result, they conclude that disparities in STEM participation exhibited
by female vis-à-vis their male counterparts can be explained –at least in
part—by the less frequent and less robust attention and encouragement
received from the most influential actors in their lives: parents and teach-
ers. Although this study confirms that males are more likely to pursue
STEMM fields, it also departs from that body of literature by finding that
even when males and females experience equivalent levels of expectation
from teachers, females still exhibit lower levels of participation in STEMM
disciplines. In addition, the findings also provide a nuanced perspective
by showing that females are more likely to attain STEMM degrees when
they perceive higher levels of expectation from their parents.
That female students’ STEMM participation is still lower with similar
levels of teacher expectations and encouragement, suggests that—though
clearly still an important and powerful predictor—expectation and en-
couragement may not be the most influential factor females students
weigh in their decisions. In other words, with respect to choosing a major,
completing a degree, or selecting a career in STEMM, females seem to
be swayed by forces beyond the scope of expectation and encouragement
experience in the school and home. One potential explanation is the in-
sidious effects of negative acculturation and the societal dictates of gender
norms in various vocational fields. It is no surprise, then, that numerous
scholars have emphasized the importance of both generating and enhanc-
ing female students’ interest in STEMM majors by introducing them to
role models that demonstrate that STEMM careers are not only for males
(Lockwood & Kunda, 1997).
Another possible explanation is self-stereotyping about personal abili-
ties. Though studies have found that many female students exhibit com-
parably high efficacy measures in math and science as well as the requisite
achievement scores required to pursue these demanding fields, they are
still more likely to select majors such as education, nursing, and child-
care—again, vocations that have been traditionally dominated by wom-
en. And yet, energizing teachers to show additional encouragement and
25
positive expectations to young women who show interest or aptitude in

STEMM-related fields appears insufficient to overcome this gender dif-
ferential. On the other hand, the findings show that similar efforts under-
taken by parents can have a more influential (though still insufficient)
effect. It is likely that a broader societal effort is necessary to slowly re-align
these norms. Recent research supports this thesis, and suggests that many
women do not pursue some STEMM fields (for example, engineering),
not because they do not believe they would excel in the workforce, but
because they do not believe they would enjoy its study (Zafar, 2013).
This study reveals new nuance and informs our understanding of how
female students navigate the complex factors that influence pursuit of
STEMM education and careers. It reinforces the fact that female students
seem to pursue STEMM fields “against all odds,” whereas males navigate
the same pipeline in a “business as usual” fashion. While simultaneously
underscoring the power of expectation as a predictor of STEMM attain-
ment, it further illustrates that female students’ choices and attainment
can be undermined at multiple junctures in the pipeline and that while
strengthening expectation and encouragement for females is necessary,
it is also insufficient to overcome the gender gap in STEMM. Still, while
teachers must redouble their supportive efforts in the classroom, it is cru-
cial that parents of female students provide renewed support to their chil-
dren in order to encourage their pursuit in STEMM.
The STEMM pipeline is complex and includes a number of influential
components. This study indicates that expectation from both teachers
and parents during high school years are is a powerful predictor of stu-
dents’ general pursuit and persistence within the STEMM disciplines.
Meanwhile, it also implies that much more can be done to support stu-
dents—especially females in pursuit of gender parity. It suggests that if
teacher and parents are to improve their students’ chances of success
in pursuing STEMM fields, they need to understand their critical roles
in facilitating students’ interest and confidence. In other words, both
parties need to re-examining their practices with respect to projecting
expectations as well as providing encouragement in both the classroom
and the home.
Limitations
Despite its contributions to our understanding of the STEMM pipeline,

this study has several limitations. First, while this study used the most
recent LSAY survey from 2007, the data were originally collected more
than a decade ago and may not capture dynamic trends in education and
the economy of recent years. Nonetheless, the fact that the data were
26
collected more than a decade ago enables us to identify students who per-
sisted through and entered STEMM careers, allowing us to analyze the full
length of the STEMM pipeline.
Second, this study exclusively uses variables from secondary school and
does not include any variables reflecting students’ experiences during
postsecondary education. This inhibits our ability to explore aspects of
postsecondary education including institutional or departmental effects
and their impacts on students pursuing STEM, which can be critical to un-
derstanding student’s retention. However, by concentrating on secondary
school variables only, we maintained our focus on measuring the impact
of expectation on students—regardless of institutional differences.
Third, despite the great value that using SCCT brought to our analysis
of students’ experiences, only the self-efficacy and expectation compo-
nents of SCCT were included in our models. Other elements addressed
in SCCT such as personal goal setting, for example, may also prove to
have a relationship with student success measures within STEMM and
should be explored in data sets that support inclusion of this component.
Incorporating additional elements to refine the analysis may lead to a bet-
ter understanding of this dynamic context, and therefore future research
should to strive to include them.
Lastly, as with any survey, data from self-report questionnaires have their
own limitations. Self-reported data are often criticized as being less objec-
tive and being susceptible to favorability bias. Well-designed surveys, how-
ever, including the LSAY, work to reduce the tendency to misrepresent
information by assuring respondents of anonymity and privacy (Miller
& Kimmel, 2012). Further, by asking students about their perceptions of
teacher expectations rather than asking teachers what they expect of their
students, we are positioned to capture a genuine effect of teacher expecta-
tion from an authentic student perspective.
Conclusion
The decision to pursue education and a career in a STEMM is not a one-

time decision, but a longitudinal process that begins during secondary
education and carries through into college. As a result it is important to
consider a variety of important points in the pipeline to better understand
which experiences have the most lasting effect for students. By approach-
ing the problem from a perspective that spans grades 9–16 as well as the
career context beyond college, we have identified factors that influence
students’ decisions to pursue overall STEMM decisions—prior to their ar-
rival at college, arguably the first critical step in the pipeline. Based on the
results of this study, it is clear that expectation plays a significant role in
27
STEMM, and teacher expectation, especially, is shown to be influential. By

focusing on expectation, this study addresses a significant gap in the litera-
ture and indicates important policy implications for parents, teachers, and
policy makers at the state and national level who are interested in better
supporting students pursuing STEMM education and careers.
Research over the past decade has begun exploring the impact of sec-
ondary school educational expectations in a postsecondary context, but
there is still much work to be done. This study contributes to that effort
and illuminates the importance of cultivating positive expectations for stu-
dents in STEMM.
Notes
1. This study analyzed both the younger and elder cohorts and found most coef-
ficients to be similar and in magnitude and statistical significance. Although we
have attached results for the younger cohort in Appendix A, we focus on the elder
cohort throughout the paper mainly because participants from the elder cohort
had a lengthier opportunity to obtain STEMM related career, a primary focus of
the study.
2. To examine if teacher and parent expectation influence white and non-white
students differently, this study conducted additional analyses that disaggregated
sample by race (see Appendices B and C). Consistent with overall sample findings,
teacher expectation was shown to have lasting influence on both White and non-
White students’ choices of major and degree attainment in STEMM. Parent ex-
pectation, on the other hand—though a significant predictor of students’ STEMM
major and career choice in the overall sample—was not a consistent predictor of
non-White students’ major and career choice in STEMM. To be sure, dividing the
sample into groups of White and non-White students resulted in increasingly small
sample sizes at each stage of analysis. As a result, interpretation of these results
should necessarily be approached with caution.
28
References
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. British
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 55(1), 193–196.
Anderson, E. L., & Kim, D. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science and
technology. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Andres, L., Adamuti-Trache, M., Yoon, E. S., Pidgeon, M., & Thomsen, J. P. (2007).
Educational expectations, parental social class, gender, and postsecondary attainment: A
10-year perspective. Youth & Society, 39(2), 135–163.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). “Not girly, not sexy,
not glamorous”: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations.
Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194.
Babad, E. (1993). Teachers’ differential behavior. Educational Psychology Review, 5(4), 347–376.
Babad, E. (1998). Preferential affect: The crux of the teacher expectancy issue. In J. Brophy
(Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the classroom (Vol. 7, pp. 183–214).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barr, D. A., Matsui, J., Wanat, S. F., & Gonzalez, M. E. (2009). Chemistry courses as the
turning point for premedical students. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(1), 45–54.
doi:10.1007/s10459-009-9165-3
Benner, A. D., & Mistry, R. S. (2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational
expectations and low-income youth’s academic competence. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(1), 140.
Bickel, J. (2001). Gender equity in undergraduate medical education: A status report. Journal
of Women’s Health & Gender-based Medicine, 10(3), 261–270.
Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’ beliefs
matter 12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97–109.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender
and Education, 17(4), 369–386.
Bodzin, A., & Gehringer, M. (2001). Breaking science stereotypes. Science and Children, 38(4),
36–41.
Brasier, T. G. (2008). The effects of parental involvement on students’ eighth and tenth grade college
aspirations: A comparative analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina
State University, Raleigh.
Brophy, J. E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 631–661.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations
for children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 61(5), 365–374.
Byars-Winston, A. M., & Fouad, N. A. (2008). Math and science social cognitive variables in
college students contributions of contextual factors in predicting goals. Journal of Career
Assessment, 16(4), 425–440.
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering and
math. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Retrieved from http://cew.georgetown.edu/stem/
29
Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary

education: Connections with high school seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of
Education, 5(2), 149–177.
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How
stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045.
Chirkov, V. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and
US adolescents common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 618–635.
Cooper, H. M., & Good, T. L. (1983). Pygmalion grows up: Studies in the expectation communication
process. New York: Longman.
Coopersmith, S. A. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college,
and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree:
An analysis of students attending a Hispanic Serving Institution. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(4), 924–942.
Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D. M., & Gerhardstein, R. (2002). Consuming images:
How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically
and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1615–1628.
de Boer, H., Bosker, R. J., & van der Werf, M. P. (2010). Sustainability of teacher expectation
bias effects on long-term student performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1),
168.
De Civita, M., Pagani, L., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E. (2004). The role of maternal educational
aspirations in mediating the risk of income source on academic failure in children from
persistently poor families. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(8), 749–769.
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.
Diegelman, N. M., & Subich, L. M. (2001). Academic and vocational interests as a function
of outcome expectancies in social cognitive career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
59(3), 394–405.
Dienstag, J. L. (2008). Relevance and rigor in premedical education. New England Journal of
Medicine, 359(3), 221–224.
Elliott, R., Strenta, A. C., Adair, R., Matier, M., & Scott, J. (1996). The role of ethnicity in
choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education,
37(6), 681–709.
Engberg, M. E., & Wolniak, G. C. (2010). Examining the effects of high school contexts on
postsecondary enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 51(2), 132–153.
Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J., & Welsh, K. M. (2006). Complex dilemmas of identity and practice.
Science Education, 90(1), 68–93.
Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM
majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational
Review, 81(2), 209–241.
Ethington, C. A., & Woffle, L. M. (1988). Women’s selection of quantitative undergraduate
fields of study: Direct and indirect influences. American Educational Research Journal,
25(2), 157–175.
Evans, C. D., & Diekman, A. B. (2009). On motivated role selection: Gender beliefs, distant
goals, and career interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(2), 235–249.
Federman, M. (2007). State graduation requirements, high school course taking, and
choosing a technical college major. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 7(1),
1–34.
30
Ferguson, R. (1998). Can schools narrow the black-white test score gap? In C. Jencks & M.
Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap (pp. 318–374). Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Frome, P., Lasater, B., & Cooney, S. (2005). Well-qualified teachers and high-quality teaching: Are
they the same? (Research Brief). Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Fuchs, B. A., & Miller, J. D. (2012). Pathways to careers in medicine and health. Peabody
Journal of Education, 87(1), 62–76.
Gilbert, J. E., & Jackson, J. F. L. (2007). Introduction and state of the STEM world. In J. E.
Gilbert & J. F. L. Jackson (Eds.), M7 STEM White Paper: Final Report (pp. 7–13). Milwaukee,
WI: Marquette University.
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A longitudinal
study of immigrant Latino parents’ aspirations and expectations, and their children’s
school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 547–582.
Good, T. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future
directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 32–47.
Good, T. L., & Weinstein, R. S. (1986). Schools make a difference: Evidence, criticism, and
new directions. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1090–1097
Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of
occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling, 28(6), 545–579.
Grauca, J. M., Ethington, C. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (1988). Intergenerational effects of college
graduation on career sex atypicality in women. Research in Higher Education, 29(2), 99–124.
Green, L. V., Savin, S., & Lu, Y. (2013). Primary care physician shortages could be eliminated
through use of teams, nonphysicians, and electronic communication. Health Affairs,
32(1), 11–19.
Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents
and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3-4),
153–166.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/
mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for research in Mathematics Education,
20, 261–273.
Hagedorn, L. S., & DuBray, D. (2010). Math and science success and nonsuccess: Journeys
within the community college. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering,
16(1), 33–50.
Hanson, S. L. (2004). African American women in science: Experiences from high school
through post-secondary years and beyond. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 96–115.
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school
physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A
gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003.
Heaverlo, C. A. (2011). STEM development: A student of 6th-12th grade girls’ interest and confidence
in mathematics and science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Drake University, Des
Moines, IA.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic
assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3),
740–763.
Holdren, J. P., & Landren, E. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college
graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. President’s Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology Report. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.
gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_feb.pdf
Horn, L., Kojaku, L. K., & Carroll, C. D. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the
persistence path through college. NCES 2001-163. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
31
Hossain, M. M., & Robinson, M. G. (2012, March). How to overcome barriers and
misconceptions of STEM education in the United States. In Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2012, No. 1, pp. 3367–3372).
Hou, Z. J., & Leung, S. A. (2011). Vocational aspirations of Chinese high school students and
their parents’ expectations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 349–360.
Howard, K. A., Carlstrom, A. H., Katz, A. D., Chew, A. Y., Ray, G. C., Laine, L., & Caulum, D.
(2011). Career aspirations of youth: Untangling race/ethnicity, SES, and gender. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 98–109.
Jodl, K. M., Michael, A., Malanchuk, O., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2001). Parents’ roles
in shaping early adolescents’ occupational aspirations. Child Development, 72, 1247–1265.
John, E. P. S., Hu, S., Simmons, A., Carter, D. F., & Weber, J. (2004). What difference does
a major make? the influence of college major field on persistence by African American
and White students. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 209–232.
Kamerasde, D. (2007). Shaping women or changing the system: Accounts of gender
inequality in science. Equal Opportunities International, 26(2), 162–170.
Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
Kuenzi, J. K. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:
Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service Report.
Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33434.pdf
Leaper, C., Farkas, T., & Brown, C. S. (2012). Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-
related beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 268–282.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An
overview. The Career Development Quarterly, 44(4), 310–321.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive
constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1),
12–35.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory
of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
45(1), 79–122.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career
choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36–49.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models
on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103.
Ma, X. (2001). Participation in advanced mathematics: Do expectation and influence of
students, peers, teachers, and parents matter? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1),
132–146. doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1050
Malcom, S. M., Chubin, D. E., & Jesse, J. K. (2004). Standing our ground: A guidebook for
STEM educators in the post-Michigan era. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Maple, S. A., & Stage, F. K. (1991). Influences on the choice of math/science major by
gender and ethnicity. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 37–60.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954.
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.
Miller, J. D., & Kimmel, L. G. (2012). Pathways to a STEMM Profession. Peabody Journal of
Education, 87(1), 26–45.
Miller, J. D., & Solberg, V. S. (2012). The composition of the STEMM workforce: Rationale
for differentiating STEMM professional and STEMM support careers. Peabody Journal of
Education, 87(1), 6–15.
32
Mistry, R. S., White, E. S., Benner, A. D., & Huynh, V. W. (2009). A longitudinal study of
the simultaneous influence of mothers’ and teachers’ educational expectations on low-
income youth’s academic achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(6), 826–828.
Muller, D., & Kase, N. (2010). Challenging traditional premedical requirements as
predictors of success in medical school: The Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Humanities and Medicine Program: Academic Medicine, 85(8), 1378–1383. doi:10.1097/
ACM.0b013e3181dbf22a
Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, L. J. (1999). Investing in teaching and learning dynamics of
the teacher-student relationship from each actor’s perspective. Urban Education, 34(3),
292–337.
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening high school chemistry education through
teacher outreach programs. A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S.
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. (NSB 07-114). Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012 (NSB 12-01). Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation. (2009). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science
and engineering (NSF Publication No. 00-327). Arlington, VA: Author.
Nicholls, G. M., Wolfe, H., Besterfield‐Sacre, M., & Shuman, L. J. (2010). Predicting STEM
degree outcomes based on eighth grade data and standard test scores. Journal of
Engineering Education, 99(3), 209–223.
Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In A. M. Gallagher
& J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach
(pp. 294–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self and self-belief in psychology and education: A
historical perspective. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of
psychological factors on education (pp. 3–21). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation
college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of
Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284.
Pearson, W., Jr., & Miller, J. D. (2012). Pathways to an engineering career. Peabody Journal of
Education, 87(1), 46–61.
Perry, J. C., Liu, X., & Pabian, Y. (2010). School engagement as a mediator of academic
performance among urban youth: The role of career preparation, parental career
support, and teacher support. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(2), 269–295.
Petterson, S. M., Liaw, W. R., Phillips, R. L., Rabin, D. L., Meyers, D. S., & Bazemore, A. W.
(2012). Projecting U.S. primary care physician workforce needs: 2010-2025. The Annals
of Family Medicine, 10(6), 503–509.
Ramaley, J. A. (2009). The national perspective: Fostering the enhancement of STEM
undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 117, 69–81.
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.
Robinson, M. (2003). Student enrollment in high school AP Sciences and Calculus: How does
it correlate with STEM careers?. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 23(4), 265–273.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 176–179.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’
intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
33
Rosser, S. V. (2004). The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientist and the struggle to succeed.
New York: Routledge.
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2010). Teacher expectations and perceptions of student attributes: Is
there a relationship?. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 121–135.
Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students: Teacher
expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3),
429-444.
Sawitri, D. R., Creed, P. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2013). Parental influences and
adolescent career behaviours in a collectivist cultural setting. International Journal for
Educational and Vocational Guidance, 1–20.
Schaub, M., & Tokar, D. M. (2005). The role of personality and learning experiences in social
cognitive career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 304–325.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’
and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 175–183.
Shumow, L., & Schmidt, J. A. (2013). Academic grades and motivation in high school science
classrooms among male and female students: Associations with teachers’ characteristics,
beliefs and practices. Journal of Education Research, 7(1), 53–72.
Solberg, V. S., Kimmel, L. G., & Miller, J. D. (2012). Pathways to STEMM support occupations.
Peabody Journal of Education, 87(1), 77–91.
Sonnert, G. (2009). Parents who influence their children to become scientists: Effects of
gender and parental education. Social Studies of Science, 39(6), 927–941.
Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., & Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing
implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and
adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 947.
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using
ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270.
doi:10.1037/a0021385
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent-child conversations about science: The
socialization of gender inequities. Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 34–47.
Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictors
of children’s concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(1), 144.
Trusty, J. (2002). Effects of high school course-taking and other variables on choice of science
and mathematics college majors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(4), 464–474.
Trusty, J., Plata, M., & Salazar, C. F. (2003). Modeling Mexican Americans’ educational
expectations: Longitudinal effects of variables across adolescence. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 18(2), 131–153.
Trusty, J., Robinson, C. R., Plata, M., & Ng, K. M. (2000). Effects of gender, socioeconomic
status, and early academic performance on postsecondary educational choice. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 78(4), 463–472.
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and
postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3),
243–270.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2007, April). The STEM workforce challenge: The role of the public
workforce system in a national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) workforce. Retrieved from http://www.doleta.gov/Youth_services/
pdf/STEM_Report_4%2007.pdf
34
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 89–101.
Wang, X. (2012). Modeling student choice of STEM fields of study: Testing a conceptual
framework of motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support.
WISCAPE Working Paper. Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education.
Wang, X. (2013). Modeling entrance into STEM fields of study among students beginning at
community colleges and four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 54(6), 1–29.
Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents
with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational
development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 785.
Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Parents’ aspirations for children’s educational attainments: Relations
to parental beliefs and social address variables. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44(1), 20–37.
Williams, T., & Williams, K. (2010). Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal
determinism in 33 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 453.
Wyer, M. (2003). The importance of field in understanding persistence among science and
engineering majors. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(3&4).
Yens, D. P., & Stimmel, B. (1982). Science versus nonscience undergraduate studies for
medical school: A study of nine classes. Academic Medicine, 57(6), 429–435.
Zafar, B. (2013). College major choice and the gender gap. Journal of Human Resources, 48(3),
545–595.
Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in
mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal,
37(1), 215–246.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency. The
role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skills. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-
efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45–69). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
35
Appendix A
Logistic Regression Coefficients (SE) and ORs of 7th Grade (Younger) Cohort Students’ Stemm Major/Career
Choice (N = 2,435)
Constant 3.99*** 0.018 7.80*** 0.000 8.37*** 0.000 3.97*** 0.019 7.85*** 0.000 8.36*** 0.000
(0.42) (0.71) (0.84) (0.42) (0.72) (0.84)
Parents’ -0.014 0.986 0.34*** 1.410 0.42*** 1.528 -0.01 0.987 0.34*** 1.407 0.42*** 1.527
education (0.053) (0.08) (0.09) (0.05) (0.08) (0.09)
level
Male 0.197 1.217 0.08 1.084 0.16 1.175 0.15 1.163 0.105 1.110 0.12 1.122
(0.12) (0.18) (0.22) (0.13) (0.24) (0.26)
36
Student 0.15* 1.157 0.26** 1.296 0.23* 1.263 0.14* 1.155 0.27** 1.308 0.24* 1.273
expectation (0.06) (0.099) (0.12) (0.06) (0.10) (0.12)
Parental 0.04 1.043 0.17 1.188 0.05 1.051 0.03 1.029 0.30 1.351 0.18 1.191
expectation (0.07) (0.12) (0.13) (0.10) (0.17) (0.20)
Teacher 0.13*** 1.133 0.18*** 1.201 0.15** 1.167 0.09 1.091 0.14* 1.144 0.08 1.082
expectation (0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.07) (0.08)
Black 0.14 1.148 -0.53 0.587 -0.55 0.575 0.15 1.160 -0.51 0.602 -0.52 0.597
(0.21) (0.38) (0.46) (0.21) (0.38) (0.46)
Hispanic -0.10 0.903 -1.54** 0.214 -1.54* 0.215 -0.10 0.902 -1.54** 0.214 -1.55* 0.212
(0.23) (0.59) (0.73) (0.23) (0.59) (0.73)
Math 0.23** 1.260 0.50*** 1.649 0.46** 1.584 0.23** 1.263 0.51*** 1.667 0.47** 1.601
Efficacy (0.08) (0.14) (0.16) (0.08) (0.14) (0.16)
Logistic Regression Coefficients (SE) and ORs of 7th grade (younger) cohort students’ STEMM major/career
choice (N = 2,435) (continued)
Science 0.55*** 1.739 0.64*** 1.895 0.65*** 1.913 0.55*** 1.734 0.64 *** 1.888 0.64*** 1.895
Efficacy (0.09) (0.15) (0.17) (0.09) (0.15) (0.17)
Gender X 1.074 1.085 0.12 1.131
Teacher (0.10)
expectation
Gender X 1.023 0.795 -0.21 0.813
Parental (0.26)
expectation
Note. OR = odds ratio; *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. The analysis includes 2,435 students (78.1%) from the LSAY 7th grade cohort
37
(n = 3,116)
Appendix B
Logistic Regression Coefficients (SE) and ORs of 10th Grade (Elder)

Cohort White Students’ STEMM Major/Career Choice (N = 1,334)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B)
-2.64*** -4.85*** -5.82***
Constant 0.072 0.008 0.003
(0.51) (0.73) (0.99)
Parents’ educa- -0.15* 0.07 -0.07
0.865 1.070 0.936
tion level (0.07) (0.08) (0.11)
Male -0.37* -0.25 -0.69*
0.692 0.778 0.504
(0.15) (0.20) (0.28)
Student 0.26*** 0.42*** 0.21
1.302 1.527 1.234
expectation (0.07) (0.11) (0.15)
Parental 0.03 0.10 0.35*
1.027 1.106 1.412
expectation (0.09) (0.12) (0.16)
Teacher 0.11* 0.17** 0.28***
1.111 1.183 1.316
expectation (0.04) (0.05) (0.07)
Math efficacy 0.10 0.02 0.23
1.101 1.022 1.257
(0.09) (0.13) (0.19)
Science efficacy 0.44*** 0.58*** 0.57**
1.545 1.787 1.762
(0.01) (0.14) (0.20)
Note. OR = odds ratio; *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. This analysis includes 1,334
students (47.2%) from the LSAY 10th grade cohort (n=2,829) who entered college
and completed the follow up career survey in 2007. Model 1 is a student’s decision
to choose a STEMM major by the second semester of college, Model 2 is complet-
ing a STEMM degree in college, and Model 3 is attaining a STEMM career.
38
Appendix C
Logistic Regression Coefficients (SE) and ORs of 10th Grade (Elder)

Cohort Non-White Students’ STEMM Major/Career Choice (N = 315)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B)
-2.97** -8.84*** -9.29***
Constant 0.051 0.000 0.000
(0.92) (0.81) (2.08)
Parents’ education level 0.31** 0.44** 0.33
1.366 1.554 1.388
(0.11) (0.17) (0.19)
Male 0.42 1.11* 0.73
1.522 3.03 2.078
(0.28) (0.44) (0.48)
Student expectation 0.33** 0.36 0.34
1.389 1.434 1.398
(0.13) (0.20) (0.22)
Parental expectation 0.04 0.47* 0.42
1.036 1.599 1.523
(0.14) (0.23) (0.25)
Teacher expectation 0.16* 0.26* 0.16
1.176 1.300 1.170
(0.08) (0.11) (0.12)
Math efficacy 0.12 0.66* 0.55
1.125 1.929 1.730
(0.17) (0.29) (0.31)
Science efficacy 0.08 0.45 0.78*
1.082 1.573 2.190
(0.17) (0.25) (0.31)
Note. OR = odds ratio; *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.This analysis includes 315
students (11.1%) from the LSAY 10th grade cohort (n = 2,829) who entered col-
lege and completed the follow up career survey in 2007. Model 1 is a student’s
decision to choose a STEMM major by the second semester of college, Model 2 is
completing a STEMM degree in college, and Model 3 is attaining a STEMM career.
39
SE WOONG LEE is a doctoral candidate in University of Wisconsin-

Madison’s School of Education, Educational Leadership and Policy
Analysis program. His interests include research to inform teacher hiring
and teacher evaluation policy. Specifically, he focuses on the influences of
teachers’ qualifications, effectiveness, and their impacts on students’ post-
secondary outcome. He is currently investigating the long-term effects of
secondary teacher quality on students’ college success.
SOOKWEON MIN is a doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin-

Madison, Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis. Her research in-
terests include the long-term effects of K–12 experiences on student
outcomes in postsecondary institutions, the demographic shifts of K–16
schools, and schools’ organizational capacities for student diversity.
GEOFFREY P. MAMEROW is the Director of Institutional and Market

Research at Heidelberg University. His interests include quality in first-
year programs and initiatives, college readiness, undergraduate teaching
and learning, and general education and the purpose of college.
40
View publication stats

Pygmalion in The Classroom and The Home: Expectations Role in The Pipeline To STEMM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pygmalion in The Classroom and The Home: Expectations Role in The Pipeline To STEMM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Pygmalion in the Classroom and the Home:

Article in Teachers College Record · October 2015

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Background/Context: Although students frequently begin forming ideas about potential

Teachers College Record Volume 117, 090305, September 2015, 40 pages

As modern life has become increasingly mediated by new and com-

completes a STEMM degree program as well as attaining a STEMM career.

In the review that follows, we begin by describing relevant background on

segregated, there has recently been a growing realization they should be

school course offerings, and choice of a technical focus (e.g., Federman,

well as their pursuit of careers in those fields (Jodl, Michael, Malanchuk,

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)

Prior research has demonstrated that individuals’ self-efficacy and out-

tasks (Coopersmith, 1967). This definition stands in contrast to the

Expectations of Teachers and Parents

A student’s educational and vocational choices are not only influenced

Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001). While parental expecta-

with a students’ self-efficacy in math and science to be good predictors of

This section summarizes the information of the variables included in this

In order to capture the relationships between these various factors and

Student Demographic Background Measures

College Encouragement and Expectation Variables

The study includes two independent “college expectation” variables that

Math and Science Efficacy Variables

In order to explore whether relationships between efficacy, expectation,

As this study employs dichotomous dependent variables to indicate

Table 3. Descriptive Data for Participants (N = 1,776)

Student Academic Efficacy

We then conducted correlation tests to check for multicollinearity be-

Table 4. Correlations Between the Independent Variables

Student Parental Teacher Math Science

.13** .07** .24** 1

.27** .16** .28** .23** 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Gender X Teacher 0.24** 1.264 0.39*** 1.479 0.323** 1.382

expectation (0.14) (0.199) (0.265)

degree, and choose a STEMM career after college. A student’s self-expec-

To be specific, while controlling for their background characteristics

Inclusion of interaction variables in the analysis reveals that when con-

Analysis of our models addresses several important aspects of how teacher

Importance of Teacher and Parent Expectation

Expectation clearly matters for students pursuing STEMM. Consistent

confirms and builds upon that understanding by focusing specifically on

Importance of Self-Expectation and Efficacy

Gender Differences in Pathways to STEMM

Previous studies exploring expectation and STEM have generally em-

positive expectations to young women who show interest or aptitude in

Despite its contributions to our understanding of the STEMM pipeline,

The decision to pursue education and a career in a STEMM is not a one-

STEMM, and teacher expectation, especially, is shown to be influential. By

Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary

Logistic Regression Coefficients (SE) and ORs of 10th Grade (Elder)

Logistic Regression Coefficients (SE) and ORs of 10th Grade (Elder)

SE WOONG LEE is a doctoral candidate in University of Wisconsin-

SOOKWEON MIN is a doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin-

GEOFFREY P. MAMEROW is the Director of Institutional and Market

View publication stats

You might also like

.13 .07 .24** 1

.27 .16 .28 .23 1

Gender X Teacher 0.24 1.264 0.39* 1.479 0.323** 1.382