Exploring Compensations For 2019 6

Subotnik, R. F., Stoeger, H., & Luo, L. (2019).
Exploring compensations for demographic dis-

advantage in science talent development. In R. F. Subotnik, S. G. Assouline, P. Olszewski-
Kubilius, H. Stoeger, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), The Future of Research in Talent Development:
Promising Trends, Evidence, and Implications of Innovative Scholarship for Policy and Practice.
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 168, 101–130.
6
Exploring Compensations for
Demographic Disadvantage in Science
Talent Development
Rena F. Subotnik , Heidrun Stoeger , Linlin Luo
Abstract
This study explores factors enhancing the likelihood that three demographically
disadvantaged groups of selective science high school graduates would com-
plete a university STEM degree 4–6 years later. The target groups are labeled
as disadvantaged in terms of STEM pipeline persistence compared to school
peers, and include: (1) women, (2) those without a parent in a STEM field,
and (3) those whose parents were not educated beyond high school. Employ-
ing Social Cognitive Career Theory as a conceptual framework, we focus on
two categories of factors. Individual factors incorporate motivation and career
intention brought to the high school experience. Environmental factors include
graduates’ high school experiences related to their STEM interest and capacity
development. The individual variables include: STEM career intentions prior
to high school, motivation for attending a specialized science high school, and
motivation for pursuing advanced science courses in high school. Environmental
factors include whether participants partook in an authentic research experi-
ence, had a mentor, felt they belonged at the school, maintained their interest
in STEM as well as perceived intellectual capacity for STEM throughout high
school. The results have promising implications for educational policy associ-
ated with STEM talented students. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, no. 168, November 2019 © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). • DOI: 10.1002/cad.20321 101
102 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT
I n response to economic or political influence, the United States

has initiated cycles of government intervention designed to promote
the importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathemat-
ics (STEM) education (Thomas & Williams, 2010). The largest financial
investment, through the National Defense Education Act (1964), targeted
the development of gifted scientific researchers and engineers (Tannen-
baum, 1983) and led to the transformation of a number of highly regarded
schools in New York City into what are called specialized science high
schools. Scholars including Bloom (1985), Tannenbaum (1986), Renzulli
(1977), Sternberg and Davidson (1986), and Stanley (1976), informed the
evolving design and curriculum of specialized science schools by proposing
key structures such as advanced courses, expert teachers, and opportunities
for independent research from their models of gifted education and talent
development.
One objective of specialized science high schools was to stimulate a
pipeline of future scientific researchers and innovators for the nation. The
pipeline problem remains daunting. However, until 2008, no survey was
conducted of specialized high school alumni that monitored the important
first step of meeting STEM career policy goals—completion of a university
degree in STEM. To close this research gap, the National Science Foundation
awarded a grant (NSF DRL0815421) to survey alumni of twenty-five geo-
graphically distributed specialized science schools. The results of the survey
showed that 49.8% of the specialized science high school graduates com-
pleted a STEM-related undergraduate degree (Subotnik, Tai, Almarode, &
Crowe, 2013), especially when compared to national figures of, on average,
only 22.6% of college students graduating with a STEM degree (National
Science Board, 2010). Additional studies by the project team found that spe-
cific experiences offered at specialized schools were associated with inten-
sification of interest and persistence in STEM related areas (Almarode, Sub-
otnik, Steenbergen-Hu, & Lee, 2018; Subotnik, Almarode, & Lee, 2016).
Survey data also indicated that three subgroups of students seemed to
be disadvantaged in comparison with their peers in achieving the goal of com-
pleting a STEM degree: (1) students without a parent employed in STEM,
(2) students whose parents were not educated beyond high school, and (3)
females. Graduates of selective science high schools with a parent employed
in a STEM field (56%) were 1.37 times more likely to complete a STEM
degree than those without a parent in STEM. Graduates of selective science
high schools with parents who were educated beyond high school were 1.30
times more likely to complete a STEM degree than those whose parents
were not educated beyond high school. Finally, male graduates of selective
science high schools were 1.84 times more likely to complete a STEM degree
than female graduates. This present study employed the NSF sponsored data
set in an attempt to identify factors associated with the STEM pipeline of
talented students found to be demographically disadvantaged in specialized
science high schools.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

EXPLORING COMPENSATIONS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC 103
Framework
The present study employed Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent,
Brown, & Hackett, 1994) as a conceptual framework. The SCCT has been
widely used in studies of STEM major choices and career development (e.g.,
Fouad & Santana, 2017; Mau & Li, 2018; Moakler & Kim, 2014; Nugent
et al., 2015). According to the SCCT, factors related to an academic major
and career choice include personal background and characteristics, learning
experiences, and self-efficacy. We used parental STEM occupation, parental
education, and gender of participants as measures of personal background.
Interest in a STEM career prior to high school and motivational variables
were used as measures of personal characteristics. Learning experiences
focused on specialized high school activities and included research opportu-
nities, mentorships, and sense of belonging as variables. Finally, self-efficacy
was measured by perceived capability to have a STEM career and intensified
interest in STEM over time.
Background Variables
Parental STEM Occupation. Using a large national college freshmen
dataset, Moakler and Kim (2014) found a positive correlation between par-
ents having a STEM career and students choosing a STEM major. The path-
way to STEM professions often starts at home (Miller & Pearson, 2012).
Students who have a parent working in a STEM-related field are likely to
cultivate early STEM interests and view their parents as career role models,
increasing the likelihood of transmitting the value of engineering, technical,
or medical careers from parents to children (Herrara & Hurtado, 2011; Mau
& Li, 2018; Miller & Kimmel, 2012; Turner, Steward, & Lapan, 2004).
Parental Education. Many studies use parental educational level as
a measure of family socioeconomic status (e.g., Grauca, Ethington, &
Pascarella, 1988; Hambourger, 2004; Herrara & Hurtado, 2011; Staniec,
2004). Previous studies found that high school students from lower–
socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds (parents not educated beyond
high school) are less likely to enroll in available advanced mathematics and
science electives compared to students from higher-SES backgrounds (Boz-
ick & Ingels, 2008; Chen & Weko, 2009; Lee & Burkam, 2003; Schneider,
Swanson, & Riegle-Crumb, 1997; Simpkins, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2006;
Tyson, Lee, Borman, & Hanson, 2007). This, consequently, reduces the like-
lihood of majoring in STEM in college.
Female. Women remain significantly underrepresented in many
STEM professions despite efforts to close the gender gap in STEM in the
past decades (Hoferichter & Raufelder, 2019). Fewer girls are enrolled in
advanced STEM courses in secondary education (Mullis & Martin, 2017),
and the gender gap becomes only wider as educational level increases
(United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization, 2017). Such

gender gaps also exist in this survey sample: 46.2% of 1,797 females in the
baseline study completed a STEM degree compared to 57.8% of the 1,589
male participants.
Personal Characteristics Variables

STEM Career Intentions Prior to High School. Literature indicates
that early interest in STEM is of primary importance to students’ decision
to select a science related major and career (Bloom, 1985; Maltese & Tai,
2011; Nugent et al., 2015; Paik, Choe, Otto, & Rahman, 2018). Further-
more, Wang (2013) argued that STEM major and career intentions are also
reflective of students’ motivation for STEM learning and previous successful
STEM learning experiences.
Motivation. Motivation matters in STEM as it predicts task persis-
tence, STEM learning outcomes, and career choices (Simpkins et al., 2006;
Svoboda, Rozek, Hyde, Harackiewicz, & Destin, 2016; Wang & Degol,
2013). High level of motivation for STEM learning is often related to
positive attitudes toward STEM, sustained curiosity, and high self-efficacy,
which all lead to a higher likelihood of career choices in STEM (Bairaktarova
& Evangelou, 2012; Marshall, McGee, McLaren, & Veal, 2011; Wang,
2013).
Learning Experience Variables

Research Experience. Conducting authentic research under the
supervision of a professional scientist, engineer, or mathematician provides
opportunities to learn the values, skills, and dimensions of creativity that
exist in the scientific research enterprise, and because of that, can be highly
motivating (Subotnik, Tai, & Almarode, 2011; Tindall & Hamil, 2003).
Mentor. Mentors are instrumental in developing and sustaining
mentees’ STEM interest and career expectations. They provide insider
knowledge, guidance toward asking good research questions (Bloom, 1985;
Zuckerman, 1977), connections to others who might be helpful, emotional
support and/or service as an intellectual sparring partner (Jacobi, 1991;
Stoeger, Duan, Schirner, Greindl, & Ziegler, 2013; Stout, Dasgupta, Hun-
singer, & McManus, 2011).
Sense of Belonging. The literature on belonging supports the notion
that students are much more likely to engage in creative thinking and intel-
lectual risk taking when they feel welcome as part of an academic commu-
nity (Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012). Furthermore, these positive inter-
actions with the environment can foster interest in STEM learning and
enhance self-efficacy for and perceived value of a specific STEM field, which
in turn, increases the likelihood of choosing a STEM career.
Intensified Interest. Researchers have been able to show that stu-
dents’ science interest declines drastically during secondary education

(Potvin & Hasni, 2014; Tytler, Osborne, Williams, Tytler, & Clark, 2008),
especially on the part of female students (Logan & Skamp, 2008). A recent
study by Anderhag and colleagues (2016) examined students transitioning
from primary to secondary education. They found that students’ science
interest intensified as a result of both cognitive and socioemotionally posi-
tive experiences in high school such as authentic learning tasks, challenging
curriculum, and supportive teachers.
Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to one’s perceived ability to perform
in a specific task (Bandura, 1986) and is often considered an impor-
tant aspect of motivation. Numerous studies found that self-efficacy pre-
dicts achievement and task persistence (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 2002;
Zimmerman, 2000). The SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) also posits that self-
efficacy is a key predictor of career choices in STEM in that students’ back-
ground and characteristics, as well as learning experiences influence their
interest and self-efficacy in STEM, which then influence their major and
career choices. The positive relationship between STEM self-efficacy and
STEM career choices is confirmed by previous STEM career development
studies (e.g., House, 2000; Mau & Li, 2018; Moakler & Kim, 2014; Nugent
et al., 2015).
The Present Study

The purpose of the present study is to explore factors associated with com-
pleting an undergraduate degree in a STEM related discipline for three
demographically disadvantaged groups of talented young people: students
without a parent employed in STEM, students whose parents were not
educated beyond high school, and female students. Based on the concep-
tual framework of Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994), we
explored important individual and environmental factors related to STEM
degree completion. Individual factors incorporate students’ background
(parental STEM education, parental education, gender) and personal char-
acteristics (STEM career intentions prior to high school and motivation).
Environmental factors include indicators of graduates’ high school expe-
riences related to their STEM interest and capacity development, namely
research experience, mentors, sense of belonging, as well as intensifying
of interest throughout high school, and self-efficacy as indicators of posi-
tive learning experiences. We investigate whether demographically disad-
vantaged graduates who earned an undergraduate degree in STEM (STEM
majors) and those who earned a non-STEM degree (non-STEM majors) dif-
fer in terms of these individual and environmental variables with the goal
of promoting forms of compensation for relative disadvantage.
Research Questions
This article addresses three specific research questions:

Research Question 1: How do STEM majors and non-STEM majors from

three demographically disadvantaged sub-populations of STEM school
graduates differ in terms of what motivated them to applying to a special-
ized science high school?
Research Question 2: How do STEM majors and non-STEM majors from
three demographically disadvantaged sub-populations of STEM school
graduates differ in terms of their specialized science high school experi-
ences?
Research Question 3: What are the key variables associated with completing
an undergraduate degree in a STEM related discipline for the three demo-
graphically disadvantaged sub-populations of STEM school graduates?
Methods
Sample and Target Groups. The present study employs data from a
NSF sponsored survey (Subotnik et al., 2013). For the sake of parsimony,
in the paragraphs below, we refer to the three subgroups as (1) no-STEM
parent graduates, (2) first-generation college students, and (3) female grad-
uates.
No-STEM Parent Graduates. Respondents were asked “Are or were
either of your parents or guardians in a career that involves direct technical
knowledge of science, mathematics, technology, or engineering?” Respon-
dents could answer “yes” or “no.” Among study participants, 39.3% did not
have a parent working in a STEM field (n = 1,381) and 56.6% did (4.0%
did not report). Looking only at no-STEM parent graduates, 53.6% earned
an undergraduate degree in a STEM field (n = 676) and 46.4% earned a
non-STEM undergraduate degree (n = 586).
First-Generation College Students. Respondents were asked “Regarding
your parent or guardian with the highest level of education, what level of
education did he/she complete?” Respondents chose “some high school”
and “high school” were categorized into the “first-generation college stu-
dents” group. Among study participants, 15.3% were first-generation col-
lege students (n = 537) and 81.0% were not (3.7% did not report). Within
the group of first-generation college students, 52.1% earned an undergraduate
degree in a STEM field (n = 253) and 47.9% earned a non-STEM under-
graduate degree (n = 233).
Female Graduates. Among specialized high school graduates, 51.2%
were female (n = 1,797) and 45.0% were male (3.8% did not report). Look-
ing only at the female graduates, 50.8% earned an undergraduate degree in a
STEM field (n = 857) and 49.2% earned a non-STEM undergraduate degree
(n = 829).
Variables.
STEM Career Intentions Prior to High School. Respondents were asked,
“Prior to entering high school, did you intend to pursue a career related

to science, mathematics, engineering, or technology?” They could answer

either “yes” or “no.”
Motivation for Attending a Specialized Science High School. Respondents
were asked to choose from a list of nine variables that most motivated them
to attend their high school. The options included interest in STEM, various
qualities of peer groups or the schools’ curriculum or instruction. Other
factors targeted the schools’ prestige and what it might mean for university
admission. Finally, some students indicated that they felt pressured by par-
ents, or had no choice in the matter. (Please see the Appendix to this article
for a complete list of possible responses to each item).
Motivation for Pursuing Advanced Science Coursework in High School.
Another motivational variable asked, “Which of the following was MOST
important in your decision to pursue advanced science, mathematics, and
technology coursework in high school?” Respondents could choose one
among 10 options, including not pursuing advanced courses in STEM at
all. The options included passion for a STEM subject, seeking a challenge
from other academically able peers, getting into a prestigious university, or
parents strongly encouraging it.
High School Research Experience. Respondents were asked, “Did you
participate in or perform original scientific research in an active research
laboratory while in high school?” They could answer either “yes” or “no.”
High School Mentors. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they
had a mentor and if they did what was that person’s relationship to the
participant. There were sixteen different options listed including parent,
teacher, staff, or professional outside of school.
Sense of Belonging. Respondents were asked to rate their feelings of
belonging during high school years socially within their peer group and
within the academic environment. For each aspect participants were asked
to indicate their response on a scale from “very weak” to “very strong.”
Intensified Interest. Respondents were asked “With regard to your inter-
est in science, mathematics, and/or technology, which of the following
apply?” Respondents could choose from among the following: “I was never
interested in science, mathematics, and technology,” “I temporarily lost
interest at some point during my time as a student,” “I permanently lost
interest at some point during my time as a student,” “I never lost interest,”
or “My interest intensified or grew over time.” For this variable, we coded
“1” for “My interest intensified or grew over time” and “0” for all the other
options.
Perceived Intellectual Capacity for Being a STEM Professional. Respon-
dents were asked “Think back to a specific time period (before high school,
as a freshman or sophomore in high school, as a junior or senior in high
school, as a freshman or sophomore in college, and as a junior or senior
in college). At these specific times, did you feel you had the intellectual
capacity to be a scientist, engineer, or mathematician?” Respondents could
answer either “yes” or “no” for each time period. For this study, we were

particularly interested in respondents’ perceived intellectual capacity for

STEM before and during high school years.
College Major. Respondents were asked to report their completed
undergraduate major. For this variable, we coded “1” for “STEM majors”
and “0” for all the other majors.
Analyses. For the sake of parsimony, we refer to graduates who earned
an undergraduate degree in STEM as “STEM majors” and those who earned
a non-STEM degree as “non-STEM majors.” For each subgroup, we report
the results of statistical comparisons between STEM and non-STEM majors
and then logistic regression to elicit which variables contributed to the like-
lihood of earning an undergraduate degree in STEM.
Results
Group Comparisons on Predictor Variables.
Individual Variables (Personal Characteristics). The first step in our
analyses was to examine variables categorized as personal characteristics.
Chi-square tests showed that STEM majors and non-STEM majors differed
with respect to their career intentions prior to entering high school, moti-
vation for attending a specialized science high school, as well as motivation
for pursuing advanced STEM disciplines for all three subgroups (Table 6.1).
In the case of all three subgroups, more STEM majors had the intention
to pursue a STEM career in advance of attending the school than non-STEM
majors. Furthermore, STEM majors were more inspired by their intrinsic
interest and passion in STEM for attending the specialized science high
school and pursuing advanced STEM coursework in high school.
Environmental/Learning Experience Variables. Environmental variables
included for analyses relate to graduates’ specialized high school experi-
ences: research in out-of-school laboratories or under the supervision of an
individual teacher at the school, mentors, sense of belonging, intensifying
of STEM interest throughout high school, and whether they perceived
having intellectual capacity for being a STEM professional during their
high school years.
Table 6.2 shows the Chi-square test results for the first three environ-
mental variables. With respect to high school research experience, more
STEM majors reported conducting or participating in original research in
high school than non-STEM majors in the no-STEM parent and female sub-
groups. Participants were asked to indicate whether they had a mentor and
if they did, what the mentor’s relationship to the participant was. There were
sixteen different options including parent, teacher, staff, or professional out-
side of school. Participants could identify one or multiple of sixteen options.
For all three subgroups, more STEM majors identified a STEM teacher as
their mentor than non-STEM majors. For all three subgroups, there were no
group differences between STEM majors and non-STEM majors regarding

Table 6.1. Chi-Square Analyses Results for Individual Motivation

Variables for Three Subgroups
STEM Career Intention Prior to High School
STEM Non-STEM
N Major Major Chi-Square p
No-STEM parent 1,253 79.8% 46.6% 149.081 <.0001
graduates
First-generation college 482 83.3% 54.3% 47.662 <.0001
students
Female graduates 1,674 81.4% 53.0% 154.299 <.0001
Motivation for Attending a Specialized Science High School
STEM Non-STEM
N Major∗ Major∗ Chi-Square p
No-STEM parent 1,256 24.9% 8.7% 56.592 <.0001
graduates
students
Motivation for Pursuing Advanced STEM Disciplines: Had a
Passion for STEM
STEM Non-STEM
N Major∗∗ Major∗∗ Chi-Square p
No-STEM parent 1,254 61.7% 26.6% 155.169 <.0001
graduates
students
Note. For the two motivational variables, there were multiple options. Due to limited space in the
table, we only reported percentages of STEM majors and non-STEM majors who indicated intrinsic
motivation of the two latter variables.
∗ Percentages of “had a STEM interest” as motivation for attending a specialized science high school.
∗∗ Percentages of “had a passion for STEM” as motivation for pursuing advanced STEM disciplines.
social or peer belonging, however, more STEM majors felt a strong sense of
belonging within the academic environment than non-STEM majors.
The remaining two environmental variables were measures of self-
efficacy: intensified interest and graduates’ perceived intellectual capacity
for STEM at different time points. Chi-square tests results are summa-
rized in Table 6.3. For all three subgroups, the distinguishing experience
between STEM majors and non-STEM majors was that their interest inten-
sified over time, most notably during the high school years. With respect
to graduates’ perceived intellectual capacity for STEM, before high school,
about equal numbers of STEM and non-STEM majors among no-STEM
parents and first-generation college students perceived themselves being

Table 6.2. Chi-Square Analyses Results for High School Research

Experiences, Mentors, and Sense of Belonging
High School Research Experience
STEM Non-STEM
No-STEM parent 1,167 40.5% 30.9% 11.617 .001
graduates
First-generation college 450 37.0% 30.5% 2.125 .145
students
High School Mentors
STEM Non-STEM
No-STEM parent 1,125 58.2% 32.4% 74.722 <.0001
graduates
students
Sense of Belonging Within Social Group (Above Average)
STEM Non-STEM
No-STEM parent 1,114 69.6% 67.1% 2.155 .707
graduates
students
Female graduates 1,516 69.8% 70.1% 3.213 .523
Sense of Belonging Within Academic Environment
(Above Average)
STEM Non-STEM
No-STEM parent 1,112 74.1% 60.8% 28.445 <.0001
graduates
students
Note. “High school mentors” has multiple options. Due to limited space in the table, we only
reported:
∗ Percentages of STEM and non-STEM graduates who had “science teachers” as a mentor in high
school.

Table 6.3. Chi-Square Results for Intensified Interest and Perceived

Intellectual Capacity at Different Time Points
Interest Intensified
STEM Non-STEM
No-STEM parent 1,188 42.4% 13.3% 118.718 <.0001
graduates
students
Perceived Intellectual Capacity
Before High School
STEM Non-STEM
No-STEM parent 1,117 74.8% 69.9% 3.304 .069
graduates
First-generation college 435 67.0% 65.9% .058 .810
students
Freshman/Sophomore Years in High School
STEM Non-STEM
No-STEM parent 1,114 77.6% 67.9% 13.326 <.0001
graduates
students
Junior/Senior Years in High School
STEM Non-STEM
No-STEM parent 1,114 90.2% 68.8% 80.042 <.0001
graduates
students
Note. “Interest change” has multiple options. Due to limited space in the table, we only reported:
∗ Percentages of STEM and non-STEM graduates whose STEM interest intensified.
intellectually capable of a STEM career. But more female STEM majors

already perceived themselves being intellectually capable of a STEM career
than female non-STEM majors. During freshman/sophomore years in high
school, more STEM majors among no-STEM parent graduates and female

Table 6.4. Logistic Regression Analysis for No-STEM Parent

Graduates
Odds
β SE p Ratio 95% CI
Individual Variables
STEM career intentions .907 .170 <.0001 2.478 [1.776, 3.456]
Interest in STEM .426 .206 .039 1.531 [1.023, 2.292]
Passion for STEM .599 .158 <.0001 1.821 [1.336, 2.482]
coursework
Environment Variables
Research experiences .128 .154 .404 1.137 [.841, 1.536]
Mentor: STEM teacher .347 .154 .024 1.415 [1.046, 1.914]
Sense of belonging: social −.135 .076 .075 .874 [.753, 1.014]
Sense of belonging: .150 .086 .080 1.162 [.982, 1.374]
academic
Interest intensified 1.247 .179 <.0001 3.479 [2.449, 4.943]
Intellectual Capacity:
Before high school .046 .220 .834 1.047 [.681, 1.611]
Freshman/sophomore −.069 .229 .763 .933 [.596, 1.463]
Junior/senior .592 .217 .006 1.807 [1.181, 2.766]
Demographic Variables
Parents not educated −.211 .162 .193 .810 [.589, 1.113]
beyond high school
Female −.517 .147 <.0001 .596 [.447, .795]
Constant −1.454 .378 <.0001 .234
graduates perceived themselves being intellectually capable of a STEM

career, but not first-generation college students. During junior/senior years
in high school, for all three sub-groups, more STEM majors perceived them-
selves being intellectually capable of a STEM career.
Figure 6.1 shows in more detail, the trajectory of feelings of intellectual
capacity during high school years by undergraduate degree major (STEM
vs. non-STEM majors) for each subgroup. The split between STEM majors
and non-STEM majors became evident during junior/senior years in high
school among all three subgroups.
Logistic Regression Analysis. A logistic regression analysis was con-
ducted to address Research Question 3: What are the key variables associ-
ated with completing an undergraduate degree in a STEM related discipline for
the three demographically disadvantaged sub-populations of specialized STEM
school graduates?
We included individual and environmental variables as predictor vari-
ables in a logistic regression model. The outcome variable was binary: com-
pletion of a STEM versus non-STEM university major. Regression results
for each subgroup are provided below.
No-STEM Parent Graduates. Respondents’ gender and their parents’
education level were included as demographic variables in the regression
analysis. Regression analysis results are provided in Table 6.4.

Figure 6.1. Changes in perceived intellectual capacity for STEM by undergraduate major.
For graduates without a parent in a STEM field, intending to pursue

a STEM career prior to high school, having interest in STEM, pursuing
advanced high school STEM courses because of a passion for STEM, having
STEM teachers as their high school mentors, their STEM interest intensified
during high school, and perceiving themselves as having the intellectual
capacity for a STEM career during high school junior and senior years were
significant predictors of earning an undergraduate degree in STEM (Cox &
Snell R2 = .228). Specifically, when other variables remain constant,
• Respondents who reported intending to pursue a STEM career prior to

high school were 2.5 times more likely to earn an undergraduate STEM
degree than those who did not.
• Respondents who had an interest in STEM prior to high school were 1.5
times more likely to earn an undergraduate STEM degree than those who
did not.
• Respondents who pursued advanced STEM courses in high school
because of a passion for STEM were 1.8 times more likely to earn an
undergraduate STEM degree than those who pursued advanced STEM
course because of more extrinsic reasons.
• Respondents who had STEM teachers serve as mentors during high
school were 1.4 times more likely to earn an undergraduate STEM degree
than those who had a different category of mentor or no mentor.
• Respondents who reported that their interest in STEM intensified during
high school were 3.5 times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree
in STEM than those whose interest in STEM decreased or did not change.
• Respondents who perceived themselves being intellectually capable of
a STEM career during junior and senior years in high school were 1.8
times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree in STEM than those
who did not believe so.
• Female students without a parent working in a STEM field were 40% less
likely to earn an undergraduate STEM degree than male students without
a parent in STEM.
High school research experiences, sense of belonging (both socially and

academically), perceived intellectual capacity for a STEM career before high
school and during high school freshman and sophomore years, and parents’
education did not have the same degree of impact for this subgroup as with
either of the other two.
First-Generation College Students. Respondents’ gender and whether
their parents work in a STEM field were included as demographic vari-
ables in the regression analysis. Regression analysis results are provided in
Table 6.5.
For first-generation college students aspiring to a STEM career prior to
high school, pursing advanced STEM courses in high school because of a
passion for STEM, having STEM teachers as their high school mentors, and

Table 6.5. Logistic Regression Analysis for First-Generation College

Students
Odds
STEM career intentions .941 .303 .002 2.562 [1.415, 4.639]
Interest in STEM .602 .361 .095 1.825 [.900, 3.700]
Passion for STEM .603 .253 .017 1.828 [1.114, 3.000]
coursework
Mentor: STEM teacher .729 .253 .004 2.072 [1.262, 3.402]
academic
Interest intensified .927 .260 <.0001 2.526 [1.517, 4.209]
Junior/senior .328 .347 .345 1.388 [.703, 2.741]
Parents not working in .291 .276 .291 1.338 [.780, 2.298]
STEM
Female −.806 .239 .001 .447 [.280, .713]
Constant −1.440 .642 .025 .237
reporting intensified interest in STEM were significant predictors of earning

an undergraduate degree in STEM (Cox & Snell R2 = .249). Specifically,
when other variables remain constant,
• Respondents who reported aspiring to a STEM career prior to high

than those who did not.
• Respondents who pursued advanced STEM courses in high school
because of a passion for the subjects were 1.8 times more likely to earn
an undergraduate STEM degree than those who pursued advanced STEM
coursework for other reasons.
• Respondents whose mentors in high school were STEM teachers were 2.1
had a different category of mentor or did not have a mentor at all.
• Respondents who reported that their interest in STEM intensified in high
school were 2.5 times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree in
STEM than those whose interests decreased or did not change.
• Female first-generation college students were 55% less likely to earn an
undergraduate STEM degree than male first-generation college students.

Table 6.6. Logistic Regression Analysis for Female Graduates

Odds
STEM career intentions .727 .149 <.0001 2.069 [1.546, 2.770]
Interest in STEM .667 .184 <.0001 1.949 [1.359, 2.794]
Passion for STEM .665 .131 <.0001 1.944 [1.504, 2.513]
coursework
Research experiences .333 .126 .008 1.396 [1.091, 1.786]
Mentor: STEM teacher .534 .129 <.0001 1.705 [1.324, 2.197]
Sense of belonging: −.010 .077 .893 .990 [.852, 1.150]
academic
Interest intensified 1.375 .147 <.0001 3.956 [2.967, 5.275]
Freshman/sophomore .207 .200 .303 1.230 [.830, 1.821]
Junior/senior .578 .180 .001 1.782 [1.251, 2.538]
Parents not educated −.456 .182 .012 .634 [.444, .905]
beyond high school
Parents not working in .095 .135 .483 1.100 [.843, 1.434]
STEM
Constant −1.862 .325 .000 .155
STEM interest prior to high school, high school research experiences,

sense of belonging (both socially and academically), perceived intellectual
capacity for a STEM career before and throughout high school, and par-
ents’ STEM-related occupation did not seem to have much impact for this
subgroup.
Female Graduates. Parents’ education level and whether parents work
in a STEM field were included as demographic variables in the regression
analysis. Regression analysis results are provided in Table 6.6.
For female graduates, aspiring to a career in STEM prior to high school,
attending a specialized high school because of their interest in STEM, pur-
suing advanced STEM classes while at the school because of a passion for
STEM, having research experiences in high school, having STEM teachers as
their high school mentors, reporting that their interest in STEM intensified
during high school, and perceiving themselves as having the intellectual
capacity for a STEM career during high school junior and senior years were
significant predictors of earning an undergraduate degree in STEM (Cox &
Snell R2 = .236). Specifically, when other variables remain constant,
• Female graduates who reported aspiring to a STEM career prior to high

than those who did not.

• Female graduates who attended a specialized science high school because

of an interest in STEM prior to high school were almost as twice as likely
to earn an undergraduate STEM degree as females who attended special-
ized high schools because of more extrinsic reasons.
• Female graduates who pursued advanced STEM courses in high school
because of a passion for STEM were about twice as likely to earn
an undergraduate STEM degree compared with females who pursued
advanced STEM courses for other reasons.
• Females who chose to participate in research experiences in high school
were 1.4 times more likely to earn an undergraduate STEM degree than
those who did not.
• Females whose mentors were their high school STEM teacher were 1.7
had no mentor or a mentor of a different category (e.g. parent, profes-
sional outside of school).
• Females who reported their interest in STEM intensified during high
school were almost four times more likely to earn an undergraduate
degree in STEM than females whose interest decreased or did not change.
• Females who perceived themselves as being intellectually capable of a
STEM career during junior and senior years in high school were 1.8 times
more likely to earn an undergraduate degree in STEM than those who did
not believe so.
• Female graduates having parents not educated beyond high school were
36% less likely to earn an undergraduate degree.
Outcomes related to sense of belonging (both socially and academi-

cally), perceived intellectual capacity for a STEM career before high school
and during high school freshman and sophomore years, and parents’ STEM-
related occupation did not show impact for this subgroup.
In sum, for all three subgroups, having intrinsic motivation, as reflected
by aspiring to a STEM career prior to high school and having a passion for
STEM learning, contributed to earning a STEM undergraduate degree. Dur-
ing high school, having a STEM teacher as mentor and experiencing inten-
sified interest in STEM are crucial high school experiences that increase
the likelihood of earning a STEM degree. Among the three subgroups, a
wider range of high school experiences seemed to be especially beneficial
to sustain girls’ STEM interest and career aspirations.
Post Hoc Analysis. Approximately 6.8% of all respondents (n = 224)
were females whose parents do not work in a STEM field, nor were they edu-
cated beyond high school. This group is perhaps the most demographically
disadvantaged among this population of talented individuals. Although the
sample size is rather small, we provide descriptive data about this interesting
group. Out of the 224 girls, 39% completed a STEM-related major (n = 88)
and 54% completed a non-STEM-related major (n = 120). [Sixteen females
(7%) did not report their undergraduate major.] Next, we compared STEM

Table 6.7. Chi-Square Analyses Results for Individual and

Environmental Variables for the Group With All Three Demographic
Disadvantages
STEM Non-STEM
n Major Major Chi-Square p
STEM career intentions 205 82.8% 51.7% 21.207 <.0001
Interest in STEM 208 21.6% 5.0% 13.215 <.0001
Passion for STEM coursework 208 61.4% 30.8% 19.229 <.0001
Environmental Variables
Research experiences 192 44.3% 26.5% 6.545 .011
Mentor: STEM teacher 183 60.5% 24.3% 24.438 <.0001
Sense of belonging: social 182 65.8% 65.1% .459 .977
Sense of belonging: academic 181 72.4% 54.3% 10.402 .034
Interest intensified 194 52.3% 13.2% 34.349 <.0001
Before high school 182 64.5% 64.2% .002 .964
Freshman/sophomore 181 65.8% 61.0% .442 .506
Junior/senior 182 89.5% 65.1% 14.135 <.0001
majors and non-STEM majors from this group on individual and environ-
mental variables (Table 6.7).
A logistic regression was conducted for this group that included indi-
vidual and environmental variables. Out of the 224 girls, there were sixty
missing cases for the regression analysis. Therefore, only 164 actual cases
were included. R2 for the model was .290 and regression analysis results are
provided in Table 6.8. The only significant variable is interest intensified:
females in this group who reported their interest in STEM intensified during
high school were 3.5 times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree in
STEM than females whose interest decreased or did not change.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore individual and environmental
factors associated with specialized science high school graduates earning
an undergraduate degree in STEM for three subgroups: no-STEM parent
graduates, first-generation college students, and female graduates. In a base-
line study (Subotnik et al., 2013) these groups of talented individuals were
shown to be relatively disadvantaged in the likelihood of earning an under-
graduate degree in STEM, yet within each subgroup, approximately half
were successful at meeting that goal. The outcomes help to understand this
outcome.
We found that in all three subgroups, students who eventually com-
pleted an undergraduate degree in STEM demonstrated a higher level of
intrinsic motivation for science prior to entering the specialized science

Table 6.8. Logistic Regression Analysis for the Special Group

Odds
STEM career intentions .705 .530 .183 2.024 [.716, 5.719]
Interest in STEM .897 .614 .144 2.452 [.735, 8.177]
Passion for STEM .760 .412 .065 2.139 [.954, 4.792]
coursework
Mentor: STEM teacher .717 .411 .081 2.049 [.916, 4.581]
Sense of belong: social −.480 .247 .052 .619 [.381, 1.004]
academic
Interest intensified 1.264 .434 .004 3.540 [1.512, 8.288]
Before high school −.033 .623 .958 .968 [.285, 3.283]
Junior/senior .333 .575 .563 1.395 [.452, 4.305]
Constant −2.242 .944 .018 .106
high school (i.e., career aspiration, early interest in STEM, and a passion for
additional STEM coursework) compared with their peers who completed
a non-STEM undergraduate degree. This finding supports the literature
showing early interest in science to be of primary importance to students’
decision to select a science related major and career (Maltese & Tai, 2011;
Nugent et al., 2015; Tai, Liu, Maltese, & Fan, 2006; Warne, Sonnert, &
Sadler, 2019). Interviews with eminent scientists also showed that many of
them had a strong intrinsic interest in science at an early age (e.g., Bloom,
1985; Paik et al., 2018).
Further, during high school, having a STEM teacher as mentor and
experiencing intensified STEM interest seem to be the most important fac-
tors associated with later completing a STEM degree in college. Previous
research shows that mentor support positively influences students’ STEM
achievement and career choice, especially for teenage girls and students
from socially disadvantaged groups (MacPhee, Farro, & Canetto, 2013;
Stoeger et al., 2013). Science teachers in specialized science high schools
can be natural mentors to students through their daily interactions. They
can validate mentees’ STEM aspirations, instill STEM knowledge, provide
emotional support, and make connections with outside of school institu-
tions and people (Pfund, Byars-Winston, Branchaw, Hurtado, & Eagan,
2016).
In addition, experiencing intensified interest in STEM throughout high
school is associated with completing an undergraduate STEM degree. This
finding suggests that early interest in STEM might not be enough for stu-
dents selecting a STEM major or career, but schools providing an environ-

ment that continues to develop students’ STEM interest during high school
and beyond is crucial (Almarode et al., 2014). These findings support Social
Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994), which posits that positive inter-
actions with the STEM environment foster and intensify students’ STEM
interest, enhance their self-efficacy and perceived value of a specific STEM
field, which in turn, increase the likelihood of choosing a STEM career.
Limitations and Future Research. The design of this study is not
without limitations. Several measures used in the analyses were binary and
compared to continuous variables. These kinds of data allow limited varia-
tion of respondents’ answers. Using binary variables in analyses also limits
the interpretation and potential implications of the findings.
Second, the study used data from a retrospective survey, which
were recollections of respondents’ high school thoughts, feelings, and
experiences 4–6 years post-graduation. Although studies have suggested
that recalls are not as significant of a limitation as once believed (e.g.,
Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2005), it is nonetheless a limitation especially
when there are no additional measures to triangulate the data.
Finally, although we provided some information for perhaps the most
demographically disadvantaged group: approximately 6.8% of all respon-
dents were females whose parents do not work in a STEM field, nor
were their parents educated beyond high school. Most of the descriptive
results of this group were in line with findings for each of the three sub-
groups. However, in this case, only intensified interest was significantly
correlated with majoring in STEM in the logistic regression model. Due
to the small sample size, it is unclear whether the other variables were
indeed unimportant, or the outcome was a reflection of a lack of statistical
power.
Implications for Research. Future research needs to drill down fur-
ther into the mechanisms offered by these schools that prepare students
for the rigors and competition involved especially in the first two years of
STEM university education, as well as to enhance already existing inter-
ests in STEM and STEM careers. This article has provided some directions
for this pursuit with suggested environmental supports that enhance the
likelihood of three groups of demographically disadvantaged students to
complete a STEM university degree, including: considering methods of
selection into schools or programs that focus on motivation for attendance,
encouraging and preparing STEM teachers to serve as mentors to students,
promoting advanced courses, providing authentic research opportunities,
and bolstering students’ beliefs about their intellectual capacity to master
difficult STEM material.
As can be observed in the following figure (see Figure 6.2 below), we
can view specialized science high schools as incubators of science talent
(Almarode et al., 2014), that also appear to help students from the three
demographically disadvantaged groups maintain their self-confidence even

Figure 6.2. STEM majors’ perceived intellectual capacity to be a scientist, engineer, or mathematician.
through the first two years of university, the period currently described as
the greatest narrowing period of science talent pipeline (Chen, 2013).
Notably, among the STEM majors from the survey sample, females
were underrepresented in engineering, mathematics/statistics, physics, and
computer sciences, but not in biological sciences, chemistry, behavioral
sciences, or environmental sciences. Future studies should explore factors
associated with majoring in the “female-underrepresented” versus “female-
equally-represented” STEM majors.
Implications for Policy. The present study focuses on three demo-
graphically disadvantaged, academically talented subgroups and proposes
policy suggestions to help them maximize their STEM goals. These policy
proposals, based on study outcomes and reinforced by the research litera-
ture, may provide a path forward in further enhancing equity in specialized
schools.
Consider finding a way to measure interest in and motivation for STEM
as a criterion for admittance to selective STEM high schools. Institute addi-
tional academically rigorous schools for those who seek more general academic
challenges (beyond STEM). Many selective STEM schools rely on entrance
examinations for admittance because of the small number of available open-
ings compared to the large number of applicants. However, if a primary
objective of specialized STEM schools is to enhance the pipeline of future
researchers and practitioners in STEM, then perhaps the best investment
would be to select not only for preparedness and ability in STEM subjects,
but also for interest and motivation. In other words, in addition to test-
ing, a secondary screen could probe for passion and commitment to STEM
subjects. We recognize that there are pitfalls in this approach, including
gaming the system through fraudulent reporting of interest, but we argue
that more young people with interests and motivation will gain access to
the opportunities they need with this approach.
If academically talented students with more general interests had more
options for attending a rigorous liberal arts program with motivated peers,
the press for admission to STEM schools might be reduced. Examples
of selective, publicly funded schools concentrating on general academics
rather than being STEM focused include Hunter College High School and
Townsend Harris High School, both located in New York City, but these
types of institutions are not as widely available as STEM schools in the
United States.
Support students’ confidence in their abilities. Although both the base-
line study and this follow-up study show that students enter specialized
STEM schools well prepared academically, some students, due to academic
comparisons with their new peer group, will respond with relief and plea-
sure to be in the company of academic peers and some will compare them-
selves to their academically talented classmates by losing confidence and
questioning the appropriateness of their placement at the school. In order to
reduce unnecessary anxiety, administrators and counselors can share with

students that academic comparisons are a natural response to entering a

more selective environment. This is a particularly important message for
students who previously attended schools where they achieved highly with
less competition or pressure.
STEM teachers are an essential ingredient in STEM persistence, and pro-
fessional development needs to include an expanded view of their role to incor-
porate advising and mentoring. Teachers employed in STEM schools are
expected to offer stimulating, advanced coursework in a way that is engag-
ing to adolescents and are selected for positions at STEM schools because of
their knowledge and instructional skills. However, beyond this more tradi-
tional responsibility, teachers can make significant contributions as mentors
in developing student talent.
Mentor support positively influences students’ STEM career choice,
especially for females and students from socially disadvantaged groups
(MacPhee et al., 2013; Stoeger et al., 2013; Stoeger et al., 2016). Science
teachers in specialized science high schools are ideal mentors through their
daily interactions, and with appropriate professional development, can pro-
vide insider knowledge that may not be accessible to those without par-
ents who are STEM professionals, much less lacking in a university edu-
cation. Insider knowledge includes connections to high quality summer
programs and competitions, the best university programs for undergrad-
uates, or promising places to seek out a research experience (Jacobi, 1991;
Olszewski-Kubilius, Subotnik, & Worrell, 2015). Success or even partici-
pation in these experiences can increase confidence in students’ knowledge
and skill in STEM.
This study explores factors that boost the likelihood of graduates of
three demographically disadvantaged, academically able groups of spe-
cialized science high school graduates’ completing a university STEM
degree. The contributions made by specialized science high schools can
be enhanced if a wider range of students have access to a valuable STEM
university degree, an accomplishment that can lead to personally rewarding
opportunities in the scientific enterprise, and affiliated creative domains and
professions.
References
Almarode, J. T., Subotnik, R. F., Crowe, E., Tai, R. H., Lee, G. M., & Nowlin, F. (2014).
Specialized high schools and talent search programs: Incubators for adolescents with
high ability in STEM disciplines. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25, 307–331.
Almarode, J. T., Subotnik, R. F., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Lee, G. S. (2018). Perceptions of
selective STEM high school graduates: Deep versus surface learning, college readiness,
and persistence in STEM. Research in the Schools, 25, 72–84.
Anderhag, P., Wickman, P.-O., Bergqvist, K., Jakobson, B., Hamza, K. M., & Säljö, R.
(2016). Why do secondary school students lose their interest in science? Or does
it never emerge? A possible and overlooked explanation: Interest in science. Science
Education, 100(5), 791–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21231

Bairaktarova, D., & Evangelou, D. (2012). Creativity and science, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics (STEM) in early childhood education. Contemporary Perspec-
tives on Research in Creativity in Early Childhood Education, 377–396.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psy-
chological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.
Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballentine.
Bozick, R., & Ingels, S. J. (2008). Mathematics Coursetaking and Achievement at the
End of High School: Evidence from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:
2002). Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2008–319. National Center for Education
Statistics.
Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields
(NCES 2014-001). Statistical Analysis Report. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
Chen, X., & Weko, T. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering
& math in postsecondary education. Washington DC: US Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics, 161.
Dixson, D. D., Worrell, F. C., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2016). Beyond
perceived ability: The contribution of psychosocial factors to academic perfor-
mance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.
1111/nyas.13210
Dou, R., Hazari, A., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM
experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education,
103, 623–637.
Fouad, N. A., & Santana, M. C. (2017). SCCT and underrepresented populations
in STEM fields: Moving the needle. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 24–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716658324
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging
and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogyl, 102, 700–717.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992281
Hambourger, L. H. (2004). Decision-making, gender and field of academic major choice.
(Doctoral Dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hoferichter, F., & Raufelder, D. (2019). Mothers and fathers—Who matters for
STEM performance? Gender-specific associations between STEM performance,
parental pressure, and support during adolescence. Frontiers in Education, 4.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00014
House, J. D. (2000). Academic background and self-beliefs as predictors of student
grade performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 27, 207–220.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review.
Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–532.
Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-
reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis
and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63–82.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001063
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2003). Dropping out of high school: The role of school
organization and structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 353–393.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002353

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.
Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging students in science across the primary sec-
ondary interface: Listening to the students’ voice. Research in Science Education, 38(4),
501–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9063-8
MacPhee, D., Farro, S., & Canetto, S. S. (2013). Academic self-efficacy and performance
of underrepresented STEM majors: Gender, ethnic, and social class patterns. Analyses
of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 347–369.
Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of
educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science
Education, 95, 877–907.
Marsh, H. (2005). Big-fish-little-pond-effect on academic self-concept. Zeitschrift für
Pädagogische Psychologie, 19(3), 119–127.
Marshall, S. P., McGee, G. W. M., McLaren, E., & Veal, C. C. (2011). Discovering and
developing diverse STEM talent: Enabling academically talented urban youth to flour-
ish. Gifted Child Today, 34(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751103400107
Mau, W.-C. J., & Li, J. (2018). Factors influencing STEM career aspirations of under-
represented high school students. Career Development Quarterly, 66(3), 246–258.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12146
Miller, J. D., & Kimmel, L. G. (2012). Pathways to a STEMM profession. Peabody Journal
of Education, 87, 26–45.
Miller, J. D., & Pearson, Jr. W. (2012). Pathways to STEMM professions for students
from noncollege homes. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 114–132.
Moakler, M. W., & Kim, M. M. (2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting
confidence and demographic factors. Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128–142.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00075.x
Mullis, I. V., & Martin, M. O. (2017). TIMSS 2019 Assessment Frameworks. Interna-
tional Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Herengracht 487,
Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands.
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Iden-
tifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Welch, G., Grandgenett, N., Wu, C., & Nelson, C. (2015). A
model of factors contributing to STEM learning and career orientation. International
Journal of Science Education, 37, 1067–1088.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). Conceptions of gifted-
ness and the development of talent: Implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 93, 143–152.
Paik, S. J., Choe, S. M. M., Otto, W. J., & Rahman, Z. (2018). Learning about the lives
and early experiences of notable Asian American women: Productive giftedness, child-
hood traits, and supportive conditions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(2),
160–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218763927
Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory
Into Practice, 41(2), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_8
Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J., Hurtado, S., & Eagan, K. (2016). Defining
attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDS and Behav-
ior, 20, 238–248.
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and
technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research.
Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.
881626

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible pro-
grams for the gifted and talented. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Schneider, B., Swanson, C. B., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (1997). Opportunities for learning:
Course sequences and positional advantages. Social Psychology of Education, 2(1), 25–
53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009601517753
Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation:
A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental
Psychology, 42(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70
Simpkins, S. D., Price, C. D., & Garcia, K. (2015). Parental support and high school
students’ motivation in biology, chemistry, and physics: Understanding differences
among Latino and Caucasian boys and girls. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
52, 1386–1407.
Staniec, J. F. O. (2004). The effects of race, sex, and expected returns on the choice of
college major. Eastern Economic Journal, 30(4), 549–562. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Stanley, J. C. (1976). The case for extreme educational acceleration of intellectually
brilliant youths. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 66–75.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Stoeger, H., Duan, X., Schirner, S., Greindl, T., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The effectiveness
of a one-year online mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education,
69, 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.032
Stoeger, H., Schirner, S., Laemmle, L., Obergriesser, S., Heilemann, M., & Ziegler, A.
(2016). A contextual perspective on talented female participants and their develop-
ment in extracurricular STEM programs. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1377, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13116
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385
Subotnik, R. F., Almarode, J. T., & Lee, G. S. (2016). STEM schools as incubators of
talent development. Gifted Child Today, 39, 236–241.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and
gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psy-
chological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54.
Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H., & Almarode, J. T. (2011). Study of the impact of selective science
high schools: Reflections on learners gifted and motivated in science and mathematics.
Washington DC: National Research Council.
Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., & Crowe, E. (2013). What are the value added
contributions of selective secondary schools of mathematics, science, and technology
to the preparation of scientists? Talent Development and Excellence, 5, 87–97.
Svoboda, R. C., Rozek, C. S., Hyde, J. S., Harackiewicz, J. M., & Destin, M. (2016).
Understanding the relationship between parental education and STEM course tak-
ing through identity-based and expectancy-value theories of motivation. AERA Open,
2(3), 233285841666487. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416664875
Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning for early careers in
science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives.
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg &
J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21–52). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Thomas, J., & Williams, C. (2010). The history of specialized STEM schools
and the formation and role of the NCSSSMST. Roeper Review, 32, 17–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190903386561.
Tindall, T., & Hamil, B. (2003). Gender disparity in science education: The causes, con-
sequences, and solution. Education, 125(2), 282–295.
Turner, S. L., Steward, J. C., & Lapan, R. T. (2004). Family factors associated with sixth-
grade adolescents’ math and science career interests. Career Development Quarterly,
53(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2004.tb00654.x
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engi-
neering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math course-
work and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 12(3), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660701601266
Tytler, R., Osborne, J. F., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening
up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition.
A review of the literature concerning supports and barriers to Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics engagement at primary-secondary transition. Dealin
University, Melbourne.
United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization. (2017). Data
extracted from World Inequality Database on Education. https://www.education-
inequalities.org/
United States. (1964). National defense education act of 1958, as amended by the 88th
Congress. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning,
and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5),
1081–1121. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213488622
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career
choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and
gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
Warne, R. T., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2019). The relationship between advanced
placement mathematics courses and students’ STEM career interest. Educational
Researcher, 48, 101–111.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York:
Free Press.

Appendix
Table A1. Full tables for motivational variables for three

demographically disadvantaged subgroups
No-STEM parent students
STEM Non-STEM
major major
(n = 672) (n = 584)
Motivation for attending specialized high school (Chi-square: 59.557, p < .0001)
• I did not have a choice of which high school to attend 4.8% 5.7%
• I had an interest in science mathematics and/or 24.9% 8.7%
technology
• I was looking to be challenged in school 30.5% 34.4%
• Quality of teaching and curriculum 13.4% 16.4%
• I was looking for an academically focused peer group 5.4% 6.5%
• I wanted to increase my chances of getting into a good 12.2% 17.6%
college
• For prestige and recognition 5.2% 6.0%
• To satisfy my parents 3.7% 4.5%
• To satisfy my teachers 0.0% 0.2%
Motivation for taking advanced STEM courses (Chi-square: 197.410, p < .0001)
• I did not pursue advanced science mathematics and 1.0% 10.5%
technology
• Prestige and recognition 1.9% 3.6%
• Getting into a prestigious university 10.0% 12.7%
• Getting a scholarship to attend a university 3.6% 8.4%
• A passion for a science mathematics and/or technology 61.7% 26.6%
subject
• My parents or guardians strongly encouraged it 2.8% 5.5%
• Quality of teaching associated with these subjects 7.3% 11.7%
• Seeking a challenge from other academically able 8.3% 11.0%
students
• To gain skills for disciplines other than science 1.6% 8.4%
technology
• I had mentors or role models in these fields 1.6% 1.7%
First-generation college students
STEM Non-STEM
major major
(n = 252) (n = 232)
Motivation for attending specialized high school (Chi-square: 25.232, p = .001)
technology
(Continued)

Table A1. (Continued)

STEM Non-STEM
major major
(n = 252) (n = 232)
college
technology
subject
students
technology
Female
STEM Non-STEM
major major
(n = 855) (n = 824)
Motivation for attending specialized high school (Chi-square: 78.521, p < .0001)
technology
college
technology
(Continued)

Table A1. (Continued)

STEM Non-STEM
major major
(n = 855) (n = 824)
subject
students
technology
RENA F. SUBOTNIK, PhD, is director of the Center for Psychology in Schools

and Education at the American Psychological Association. One of the Center’s
central missions is to generate public awareness, advocacy, clinical applications,
and cutting-edge research ideas that will enhance the achievement and perfor-
mance of children and adolescents with special gifts and talents in all domains.
HEIDRUN STOEGER, PhD, is chair professor for School Research, School Devel-
opment, and Evaluation at the University of Regensburg in Germany. She is
currently serving as the vice president of the International Research Association
for Talent Development and Excellence (IRATDE). Her main interests in the field
of talent development and excellence are teacher training, the Actiotope Model
of Giftedness, educational and learning capital, and mentoring.
LINLIN LUO is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Institute of Educational Sci-

ence at the University of Regensburg, Germany. She earned her PhD in edu-
cational psychology from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Her research
interests include talent development in STEM education and program design
and evaluation for online mentoring.

Copyright of New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development is the property of John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Exploring Compensations For 2019 6

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

Exploring Compensations For 2019 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subotnik, R. F., Stoeger, H., & Luo, L. (2019).

Exploring compensations for demographic dis-

I n response to economic or political influence, the United States

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Personal Characteristics Variables

Learning Experience Variables

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

The Present Study

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Research Question 1: How do STEM majors and non-STEM majors from

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

to science, mathematics, engineering, or technology?” They could answer

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

particularly interested in respondents’ perceived intellectual capacity for

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.1. Chi-Square Analyses Results for Individual Motivation

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.2. Chi-Square Analyses Results for High School Research

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.3. Chi-Square Results for Intensified Interest and Perceived

intellectually capable of a STEM career. But more female STEM majors

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.4. Logistic Regression Analysis for No-STEM Parent

graduates perceived themselves being intellectually capable of a STEM

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

For graduates without a parent in a STEM field, intending to pursue

• Respondents who reported intending to pursue a STEM career prior to

High school research experiences, sense of belonging (both socially and

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.5. Logistic Regression Analysis for First-Generation College

reporting intensified interest in STEM were significant predictors of earning

• Respondents who reported aspiring to a STEM career prior to high

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.6. Logistic Regression Analysis for Female Graduates

STEM interest prior to high school, high school research experiences,

• Female graduates who reported aspiring to a STEM career prior to high

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

• Female graduates who attended a specialized science high school because

Outcomes related to sense of belonging (both socially and academi-

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.7. Chi-Square Analyses Results for Individual and

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.8. Logistic Regression Analysis for the Special Group

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

students that academic comparisons are a natural response to entering a

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table A1. Full tables for motivational variables for three

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table A1. (Continued)

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table A1. (Continued)

RENA F. SUBOTNIK, PhD, is director of the Center for Psychology in Schools

LINLIN LUO is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Institute of Educational Sci-

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

You might also like