J Res Sci Teach - 2021 - Dou - Constructing STEM Identity An Expanded Structural Model For STEM Identity Research

Received: 31 May 2020 Revised: 11 October 2021 Accepted: 17 October 2021
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21734
RESEARCH ARTICLE
|
Constructing STEM identity: An expanded

structural model for STEM identity research
Remy Dou1,2 | Heidi Cian1,2
1
STEM Transformation Institute, Florida
International University, Miami, Abstract
Florida, USA Identity development frameworks provide insight into
2
Department of Teaching and Learning, why and to what extent individuals engage in STEM-
Florida International University, Miami,
related activities. While studies of “STEM identity”
Florida, USA
often build off previously validated disciplinary and/or
Correspondence science identity frameworks, quantitative analyses of
Remy Dou, STEM Transformation
Institute, Florida International
constructs that specifically measure STEM identity and
University, 11200 SW 8TH ST, Miami, FL its antecedents are scarce, making it challenging for
33199, USA. researchers or practitioners to apply a measurement-
Email: redou@fiu.edu
based perspective of participation in opportunities
Funding information billed as “STEM.” In this study, we tested two
National Science Foundation CAREER, expanded structural equation models of STEM identity
Grant/Award Number: AISL-1846167
development, building off extensions of science and
disciplinary-identity frameworks, that incorporated
additional factors relevant to identity development:
gender, ethnicity, home science support, parental
education, and experiencing science talk in the home.
Our models test theorized relationships between inter-
est, sense of recognition, performance-competence, and
identity in the context of STEM with undergraduate
students (N = 522) enrolled in introductory STEM
courses at a Hispanic Serving Institution. Our findings
support our measurement of STEM identity and its
indicators, providing researchers with a predictive
model associated with academic intentions across
disciplinary domains in STEM. Further, our expanded
model (i.e., Model I+) indicates significant contribu-
tions of participant gender, which has a larger indirect
© 2021 National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
458 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea J Res Sci Teach. 2022;59:458–490.

|
10982736, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21734 by Qatar Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DOU AND CIAN 459
effect on STEM identity (β = 0.50) than the direct effect

of STEM interest (β = 0.29), and of home support in
relation to performance-competence in academic con-
texts. Our model also posits a significant contribution
of family science talk to sense of recognition as a STEM
person, expanding our understandings of the important
role of the home environment while challenging prior
conceptions of science capital and habitus. We situate
our results within a broader discussion regarding the
validity of “STEM identity” as a concept and construct
in the context of communities often marginalized in
STEM fields.
KEYWORDS
gender, identity development, parental support, STEM identity
1 | INTRODUCTION
Identity theory (Gee, 2000; Gee & Allen, 2001) posits that individuals author identities through
personal and social negotiations with members of communities who possess a unique collection
of characteristics that distinguish them from community outsiders. Contemporary research in
STEM education highlights the utility of applying identity lenses to interpretations and predic-
tions of individuals' participation in STEM and related communities, including their learning
behaviors, career pursuits, or participation in recreational STEM activities (Calabrese Barton
et al., 2013; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Gee, 2000; Hazari et al., 2010; Moote et al., 2020;
Rahm & Moore, 2016; Simpkins et al., 2015). Identity lenses support explorations of how and
why individuals decide that these behaviors and intentions are “for them” or “not for them”
through assessment of community fit. While frameworks for science identity (e.g., Carlone &
Johnson, 2007) and STEM disciplinary identity (e.g., physics identity, Hazari et al., 2010;
engineering identity, Godwin et al., 2016; coding identity, Hughes et al., 2021) exist and serve
significant purposes in education research, the evolving contemporary contexts of “STEM”
programs and initiatives in both formal and informal environments, as well as existing
qualitative work around STEM identity development, call for additional empirical explorations
of the construct of STEM identity and its antecedents (National Research Council [NRC],
2014b). Although qualitative and quantitative research in educational contexts posit that
individuals identify with “STEM” in ways congruent with how they identify with other
content-based domains (e.g., Herrera et al., 2012; Hughes et al., 2013; Rosenthal et al., 2011;
Seyranian et al., 2018; Steinke, 2017), quantitative identity models have not tested “STEM
identity” in relation to its theorized antecedents, but rather subdisciplines within STEM
(e.g., physics identity, biology identity, science identity).
Identity theory broadly (e.g., Gee, 2000; Gee & Allen, 2001) and disciplinary identity theo-
ries in particular (e.g., Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Hazari et al., 2010; Starr et al., 2020) highlight
individuals' identity as largely a product of their interactions with others. In other words, an
|
460 DOU AND CIAN
individuals' self-perception in a field is intimately tied to how others see them within the field
(Kim et al., 2018). A consequence of this social component of identity construction is the power
of marginalizing stereotypes that preclude participation of individuals based on racial, gender,
or family socioeconomic factors—stereotypes which are rooted in historical sociopolitical deci-
sions in the construction of a white, masculine scientific elite (Mutegi, 2013; Schiebinger, 1989).
Because “STEM” carries associations with socioeconomic privilege, whiteness, and masculinity,
realization of a STEM identity is more fraught for individuals who fall outside of this demo-
graphic prototype. Despite the significance of social positioning predicated on these factors in
how individuals come to identify (or not) with STEM, they are rarely accounted for in existing
disciplinary identity models.
We respond to the above by building on previous disciplinary identity frameworks to put
forward a model of STEM identity development that accounts for participant-level factors
(i.e., gender and ethnicity). Additionally, inspired by research that suggests characteristics of
the home environment, such as parental education and recreational talk about science, influ-
ence STEM identity and identity-related outcomes (e.g., Archer et al., 2012; Dou et al., 2019;
Dou & Cian, 2021; Jones et al., 2021; Moote et al., 2020; Sjaastad, 2012), we consider the contri-
bution of those variables, which are not explicitly accounted for in existing models. We contex-
tualize this research within a population of students in a tertiary education setting
(i.e., postsecondary or university), thus situating the study in a context where individuals have
made and are in the process of making significant identity-related decisions (i.e., electing post-
secondary education, selecting a college major, and deciding on potentially lifelong careers).
Below we present a summary of existing identity frameworks in the context of “science”
and within specific disciplinary domains (e.g., physics). We describe how these frameworks
have been developed, adapted, and applied in quantitative research as useful models, while
making the case for how a quantitative model of “STEM identity” that builds off prior frame-
works and models would be valuable to education researchers. Taking on a social identity per-
spective, as introduced above, we then test two structural models of STEM identity and its
antecedents expanded to account for participants' personal and contextual characteristics.
Finally, we present our findings and their implications alongside recommendations for identity
researchers whose work encompasses an integrated approach toward STEM and its subfields.
2 | B ACKGROU N D AN D G U I D I NG F R A M E W O R KS
To make the case for a quantitative structural model of STEM identity, we consider how exis-
ting models align with theoretical frameworks of identity and the factors that contribute to
identity development. We also posit the value of accounting for variables relevant to partici-
pants' personal and contextual characteristics.
2.1 | Existing models in disciplinary identity in STEM fields
A variety of approaches to making sense of identity in STEM contexts have arisen that focus on
individuals' perceptions of the kind of person they believe themselves to be in relation to broad
subfields (e.g., science; Carlone & Johnson, 2007) or specific STEM disciplines (e.g., physics;
Hazari et al., 2010). Among these conceptualizations, Carlone and Johnson's (2007) framework,
derived from research with women of color in science careers, is commonly cited in research on
|
DOU AND CIAN 461
science and disciplinary identity spanning a variety of educational contexts, including students
in K-12 education (e.g., Archer, Dewitt, & Osborne, 2015); university teacher education
(e.g., Avraamidou, 2018); and university STEM programs (e.g., Chang et al., 2014; Eagan Jr
et al., 2013; Hurtado et al., 2009). Their framework posits three major contributors—often
operationalized as precursors or factors—to science identity: science-related social performances,
science-related knowledge and competence, and sense of recognition as a science person.
Extending this work, Hazari et al. (2010) developed and tested a quantitative model for
physics identity to better understand students' career choices. Like other models (Hayduk &
Littvay, 2012), theirs suggested a three-factor structure of identity constructs, documenting rela-
tionships between those constructs and physics identity. Although they explicitly aligned their
model with Carlone and Johnson's (2007) framework, factor analyses prompted them to com-
bine the attributes of performance and competence into a single category (i.e., performance-
competence), which they measured in terms of individuals' beliefs about their own ability to
perform and understand physics in school. Additionally, their modified model included the
construct of physics “interest,” which aligns with Bandura's (2001) adaptation of social
cognitive theory that posits a relationship between constructs related to self-efficacy (like
performance-competence) and those related to interest. The addition of interest as a factor
also reflected the need to modify Carlone and Johnson's work, which focused on science
professionals, for the context of undergraduate students, drawing from previous literature on
the contribution of interest in students' STEM aspirations and motivations. Hazari et al.'s (2010)
identity model posits that an individual's sense of self as a “physics person” is a factor of their
interest in physics, their sense that others recognize them as a physics person, and indirectly—
as mediated by interest and recognition—a factor of one's performance-competence. While this
model was designed for predicting physics aspirations, it has since been quantitatively modeled
and validated in different postsecondary STEM disciplines, including biology and chemistry
(Hazari et al., 2013), mathematics (Cribbs et al., 2015, 2016), engineering (Godwin et al., 2016),
and computer science (Mahadeo et al., 2020).
While the works cited above explore the reliability of the identity structure in disciplinary
contexts, Godwin et al. (2013) explored these related models within the broader context of
“science.” Their science identity model aligns with the structure of the physics identity model
in positing a direct path from science interest and science recognition to science identity. It
further establishes an indirect relationship between science identity and performance-competence
as mediated by both interest and recognition. Tests of their model aligned with previously
validated models (e.g., Brown et al., 2008; Lent et al., 2003; Navarro et al., 2007), underscoring
the durability of the relationships between the factors that contribute to a person's disciplin-
ary identity.
2.2 | Contextualizing identity development
Supported by the works of Carlone and Johnson (2007) and Kim et al. (2018), we approach
STEM identity with an understanding that its development does not occur in a vacuum, but
rather takes on meaning for the individual inasmuch as their other ways of being fit within
their conceptions of STEM and STEM professionals. In other words, the extent to which an
individual exhibits STEM interests, feels recognized as a STEM person, and sees themselves as
such can be limited and/or facilitated by other personal identities (e.g., gender identity, ethnic
identity) and their personal experiences relevant to STEM.
|
462 DOU AND CIAN
2.2.1 | Personal attributes that contribute to identity development
Many researchers who use an identity lens, regardless of the framework they draw upon, high-
light the especially predictive value of the recognition element to identity. As noted above, some
identity models suggest that recognition not only contributes directly to identity but also medi-
ates the relationship with performance-competence, meaning that recognition is not only a
noteworthy contributor in and of itself but also in its effects on other contributors.
When individuals are recognized as a STEM person, values and standards of STEM are
reflected within that act of recognition. As such, recognition is a political act which serves not
only to communicate to an individual their belonging in STEM but also perpetuates the (often
white, masculine) standards and values of STEM by defining criteria for membership—bending
the identities of those who aspire to be recognized toward these norms and excluding those
who refuse or fail to reform themselves to comply with these stereotypes (Avraamidou, 2021;
Wright & Riley, 2021). Thus, the capacity for an individual to be recognized within a commu-
nity is “bound within sociopolitical and historical contexts, and hence, tied to specific cultural
norms, values, beliefs, and stereotypes” (Avraamidou, 2020, p. 332). In one illustration of this,
Dawson et al. (2020) explored the experiences of middle school girls at a science museum, find-
ing that this “space offered little support for girls to enact performances that were congruent
with both learning science and the kinds of femininity, ‘race’/ethnicity or class identities girls
were invested in” (p. 10). Carlone and Johnson (2007) highlighted the disruptiveness experi-
enced by scientist women of color when exploring science identity, stating
…recognition was problematic for the women in this study because it hinged so cru-
cially on an external audience. The composition of this audience, mostly white
males, along with the institutional and historical meanings of being a scientist
(being a white male), complicated their bids for recognition (p. 1207).
These studies document the challenges marginalized groups face in developing a sense of recog-
nition in science when the criteria for recognition have been historically constructed in the
exclusion of these individuals, and the presence of this phenomena ranging from middle school
to career settings speaks to its pervasiveness and persistence. This supposition is reflected by
the consistent results of “draw-a-scientist” tests, which have exhibited these stereotypes over
decades and across racial, national, age, and gender groups (Miller et al., 2018). Viewed along-
side the instrumental role of recognition in identity construction, the presence of these stereo-
types speaks to the need to consider gender and ethnic variables when constructing models of
STEM identity.
2.2.2 | The role of family recognition in individuals' identity construction
Members of communities within which an individual already identifies can affect—positively

and negatively—their developing identification with other communities. In resonance with this
concept, research has consistently demonstrated the unique capacity for family environments
to contribute to identity-related outcomes in STEM. Much of this work draws upon the notion
of science capital and family habitus articulated in Archer et al. (2012). They define habitus as
“a theoretical tool for making sense of the ways in which families (and their values, resources,
sense of ‘self’/identity, and practices) may relate to children's (science) aspirations” (p. 884) and
|
DOU AND CIAN 463
science capital as the resources used to support science activity, which may be material, such as
books, or immaterial, such as social connections. Archer et al. (2012) observed that when par-
ents lacked science habitus or capital, they felt unable to support their children's science inter-
ests. One illustrative example is that of Jake, whose mother recalled that he would attempt to
engage with her while he watched science television but felt she “lack[ed] the time or interest
to join him” (p. 898). The authors suggested that this absence of interaction affected Jake's inde-
pendent pursuits to do or learn science, making them “somewhat sporadic and haphazard”
(p. 899) compared to that of peers from families with more science capital.
This suggestion is supported by the work of Sha et al. (2016) which concluded through sur-
vey data of fifth and sixth grade students that family support for science learning was associated
with their science interest and self-efficacy, but that support was directly related to the availabil-
ity of physical resources in the home. Expanding on Archer et al.'s work, Moote et al. (2020)
surveyed 17- and 18-year-old English students to derive relationships between science capital,
aspirations, and attitudes for each of the four STEM subfields (i.e., science, technology, engi-
neering, mathematics). Their science capital items included assessment of parents' valuing of
science, whether students talked with others about science, and whether individuals in their
families worked in science. A composite science capital score derived from these items showed
significant positive correlation with parent attitudes and child aspirations toward science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematics (separately). This framing of capital and habitus suggests
that parents from marginalized communities in STEM, while aware of their children's engage-
ment with STEM, may feel incapable of supporting or furthering that interest. This difficulty
arises in part due to the marginalization that parents of these communities are themselves sub-
jected to by the STEM enterprise and society in general.
Despite the impediments that many families face, family support of children's STEM pursuits
can exist regardless of parents' own careers (Sjaastad, 2012). Yet, evidence suggests the nature of this
support may deviate from what is recognized using a science capital framework. Exemplifying the
cultural situatedness of family support, Avraamidou (2021) relates the life history of Zehra, a phys-
ics instructor from a working-class, Muslim family in Turkey. Zehra reflected that her parents,
who, in her words “aren't educated” (p. 25) did not provide her with resources or recognition of her
physics personhood. However, Zehra did recognize that her parents did not restrict her physics
pursuits—significant in its contrast with their conservative culture—noting that this absence of
opposition “was big for me” (p. 25). Zehra's story illustrates the diverse shapes parent support may
take and its relationship with cultural context, suggesting that the forms of family support that mat-
ter are contextually dependent. Similarly, Ortiz et al. (2019) used Yosso's (2005) concept of commu-
nity cultural wealth to highlight familial ways of supporting the STEM-related aspirations of Black
STEM undergraduate students. Their model brings additional attention to family support of STEM
aspirations that are not accounted for in Archer et al.'s (2012) science capital framework, such as
preparing students to contend with the racial exclusion exhibited in STEM communities. Furthering
the complexity of family support, many of the students in Ortiz et al.'s (2019) study came from fami-
lies in which an adult was employed in a STEM profession, which simultaneously reinforces the
value of traditional STEM capital. These studies suggest that the home and home life stand out as
contexts where STEM identity can be nurtured without violence to racial or ethnic identities, even
in circumstances where traditional science capital is scarce; nevertheless, even in the home, socio-
cultural stereotypes of who can be a STEM person may exist, and these may even act contrary to
children's STEM identity development such as in research finding pervasive gender-based biases
that can be enacted by family members (Gushue & Whitson, 2006; Koch et al., 2019; Rodriguez
et al., 2019; Simpkins et al., 2015).
|
464 DOU AND CIAN
2.2.3 | The role of family talk in individuals' identity construction
One of the most fundamental ways that families communicate support—in STEM as well as in
children's pursuits broadly—is through dialogue. These interactions, though often less publicly
visible than the parental engagement options available to more privileged families (e.g.,
volunteering at the school, making financial donations), are invaluable tools for youths facing
institutional stereotypes that impede their identity development and academic success (Syed
et al., 2011). However, casual talk experiences may not be identified as habitus when using
frameworks such as Archer et al.'s (2012) where habitus is described as going “beyond simplis-
tic, conscious forms of identification with science (e.g., attitudes to/liking of science)” (p. 885)—
implying that parents without scientific backgrounds or access to resources to facilitate
these conversations are less capable of engaging in identity-supportive science talk with their
children. Gonsalves et al.'s (2021) study of the factors that supported undergraduate science
majors' science identity trajectories reinforces the importance of family science background as a
foundation for home science talk. Their findings illustrated that science conversations were
common in households where a family member held a STEM career, and these conversations
facilitated students' interest in science and their perspective that science careers were a fit for
them. Matthew, the only student who did not consider either parent to work in STEM, was also
the only student who did not express that his family influenced his career trajectory.
However, other studies suggest that “science talk” with close family members can positively
contribute to STEM identity construction even while considering factors like race, ethnicity,
gender, family support, mathematics and science grades, and parental education (Dou
et al., 2019). In Cian et al.'s (2021) study of the content, context, and structure of family science
talk, the authors found that parents—regardless of STEM affiliations, educational background,
and cultural identities—facilitate children's STEM identity by responding affirmatively to their
STEM interests, recognizing and celebrating STEM efforts, and communicating a value of
STEM pursuits within the broader context of their career goals. This influence on identity may
be explained through understanding talk as a tool with which information, values, interests,
and perceptions may be co-constructed (Vygotsky, 1980; Wells, 1994). In this way, dialogue
provides a space for identity construction whereby internal processes are projected outward,
allowing for identity-formative recognition events to take place (Molder & Potter, 2005).
Particularly for youths enrolled in an educational system that consistently underrecognizes
their interests and capabilities, engaging in “science talk” with parents may be especially
important for their capacity to see themselves within the STEM enterprise.
Jackson et al. (2018) also implicate the role of talk in college students' STEM interests—a
central component of STEM identity. Their findings echo and expand upon the work of Dabney
et al. (2013) who found that college students attribute their initial interest in STEM to family.
This is also reflected in Pattison and Dierking's (2019) analyses of interest development in
preschool-aged children engaging in engineering activities with their maternal guardians. Still,
stories such as that of Jake's mother emphasize that parents—themselves products of the pro-
cesses of marginalization that act upon their children—may internalize the larger narrative that
they are incapable of making meaningful, positive contributions to their children's STEM iden-
tification, leading to missed opportunities to capitalize upon identity-supportive talk events.
By accounting for a sense of home support and recognition activities such as childhood sci-
ence talk alongside variables more commonly considered in research (e.g., parent education,
gender, and race/ethnicity), identity frameworks and models could articulate this influence to
promote efforts that engage families in identity-supportive activities. Additionally, inquiring
|
DOU AND CIAN 465
about these elements of students who are current STEM majors could offer a retrospective
approach informed by the perceptions of individuals who have experienced years of authoring
their STEM identity, rather than assessing how these elements may contribute to future aspira-
tions of younger students, as in the case of Archer et al.'s (2012) work.
2.3 | Broad conceptualizations of “science” and “STEM” in identity

research
Given the importance of individuals' conceptualizations of terms like “science” and “STEM” in
shaping their affiliation with related communities, we consider how education researchers have
operationalized them, focusing on identity studies.
2.3.1 | “Science”
“Science” has been used to reference specific collectives of subdisciplines, such as Simpkins
et al.'s (2015) study that employed the term in reference to biology, chemistry, and physics
fields. Carlone and Johnson (2007) studied women who perceived themselves as “science” per-
sons but whose careers spanned different disciplines within science (e.g., molecular biology,
chemistry, anthropology). This summation (or reduction) is often useful for understanding the
experiences of broad groups of individuals in related contexts. For example, while the women
in Carlone and Johnson's study may have further defined themselves as molecular biologists,
chemists, or anthropologists, all of them expressed a connection to the more encompassing
term—science. Although they did not all share the same definition of what it means to be a sci-
ence person—not unusual given contextual and sociocultural understandings regarding the
term—their conceptualizations proved useful in identifying patterns across their varying experi-
ences and individual identity expressions.
This broad utilization of “science” is not consistent across studies relevant to identity forma-
tion. In Sadler et al.'s (2012) research on high school students' career interests, the term “sci-
ence” was defined to encompass mathematics, and in Dawson et al.'s (2020) ethnographic study
of middle-school aged girls, the authors explicitly stated that they “use the term science
throughout [their] paper and define it broadly as science, technology, engineering and maths
(STEM)” (p. 677). Often, researchers do not specify fields, either assuming agreement with their
audiences' conceptualization of “science” (e.g., Falk et al., 2018) or leave it purposely undefined
to account for audiences' divergent conceptions of what counts as “science” (e.g., Archer,
Dawson, et al., 2015). Thus, though the term “science” takes on a variety of meanings, which
may raise questions about the appropriateness of models for “science” constructs, these models
have served meaningful practical purposes.
2.3.2 | “STEM”
Similarly, the term “STEM,” despite lacking a widely agreed-upon definition beyond its specific
acronym, has been used to address underlying constructs that do more than just reference four
different subfields but rather refer to a broader categorization, such as in defining goals in
STEM literacy (Bybee, 2010), addressing the need for integrated STEM curriculum
|
466 DOU AND CIAN
(NRC, 2014b), and referencing a toolkit of skills needed to address complex, real-world prob-
lems (Bybee, 2010; Nadelson & Seifert, 2017). Considering STEM in this way, policy initiatives
(e.g., NRC, 2014b) and research (e.g., Dierking & Falk, 2016) have emerged that are aimed at
achieving and understanding outcomes and experiences associated with STEM as a broad, uni-
fying concept—rather than outcomes and experiences related to subfields or disciplines within
STEM, such as mathematics or physics.
While the concept of “STEM” as an all-encompassing umbrella term may have been inap-
propriate two decades ago—the National Science Foundation did not coin the term until
2001—the term now enjoys widespread usage, is included in major dictionaries, and has
become commonplace in educational arenas, both formal and informal. “STEM” has been used
to describe White House initiatives (e.g., Committee on STEM Education, 2018; President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2010) and education activities of major federal
agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Department
of Education, the Department of Defense, and the National Science Foundation. It has been the
subject of national reports (e.g., Froschl & Stimmer, 2019; NRC, 2011, 2014a, 2014b), incorpo-
rated into the language and mission of large corporations (e.g., 3MGives, 2017; Making Science
Make Sense, 2016), and has been a focus area of national organizations, like the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association.
State-level initiatives that may have once separated mathematics and science now address both
these broad areas using the term STEM (e.g., Indiana Department of Education - Office of
Workforce and STEM Alliances, 2018), and local schools and informal learning institutions
now offer STEM programs, clubs, camps, academies, and so forth (e.g., Ferrara et al., 2017;
Lynch et al., 2018; Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2014; NRC, 2011; Sahin et al., 2015).
2.4 | The need for a “STEM identity” model
While the identity models described earlier have shown durability in a variety of contexts, par-
ticularly for university students, they have not been adapted and tested within the context of a
broader construct of “STEM identity.” In a report summarizing the status and trajectory of K-12
integrated STEM education, the National Research Council (NRC, 2014b) stated that research
on STEM identity could “help to explain why some instructional reforms succeed or fail even
when they take into account gender, race, and language concerns” and could contribute to
understandings of “why one might engage in classes, enroll in STEM courses, or use ideas and
practices from STEM disciplines outside the classroom” (pp. 63–64). Yet, their review of
research found few instances of “direct measures” (p. 63) of STEM identity, instead measuring
identity-related outcomes such as STEM career intentions. Although valuable, these identity
proxies narrowly define what it means to be a STEM person such that other ways of identifying
with STEM may not be sought out by program developers simply because progress along those
dimensions has not been validly captured and measured. Thus, a model defining contributors
to a construct of STEM identity would prove valuable in STEM contexts for which construct-
related (as opposed to outcome-related) identity effects are of interest.
That is not to say others have not presented quantitative approaches to STEM identity mea-
surement. Hughes et al. (2021) used a survey of STEM identity to select individuals to interview
for their research on girls' coding identity development, but the instrument they used to mea-
sure STEM identity (Hughes & Roberts, 2019) asked participants to consider their relationship
to “science” or “scientists” rather than “STEM.” While the terms “STEM” and “science” may
|
DOU AND CIAN 467
have been considered synonymous by the researchers, the assumption is not checked in the
study population. For instance, “STEM” is often used to refer to opportunities in technology
and engineering (Martín-Paez et al., 2019), so individuals marginalized from those fields, such
as women, may identify less with “STEM” than they might with “science.” Such methodological
challenges facing STEM identity researchers using survey methods highlights a need for clarifi-
cation of this construct and evaluation of the appropriateness of its interchangeability with exis-
ting models of science identity or disciplinary identity development.
Despite this lack of clear articulation, programs aimed at promoting STEM outcomes, such
as enrollment in higher-level STEM courses, selection of STEM careers, and expanded apprecia-
tion of STEM, continue to receive broad support. Given that identity has been suggested to
mediate intervention experiences, an understanding of STEM identity as a construct, its related
antecedents, and how they may be measured would contribute to evaluations of the success of
those programs. Yet, adequate quantitative multivariate identity models that explore factors
contributing to STEM identity and build on existing identity models in the context of STEM
have yet to be presented. In one recent attempt, Starr et al. (2020) modeled STEM identity in
relation to several variables, including recognition, classroom climate, and grades, using survey
data from over 1000 undergraduate students enrolled in biological science courses at a Hispanic
Serving Institution (HSI). Their purpose was to understand the outcomes associated with
authentic learning opportunities in undergraduate biological science courses, including STEM
identity and identity-related outcomes, like course grades and career aspirations. However, they
adapted items from instruments used to assess gender or racial-ethnic identity to measure
STEM identity but only provide an alpha statistic for reliability—thus not accounting for the
possibility of unique structures of STEM identity as compared to racial-ethnic or gender iden-
tity. Additionally, they calculated participants' specific STEM identity measures as the differ-
ence in pre- and post-course values—a curious choice given the general stability of college
students' identity over short periods of time and the incremental process of identity formation
(Eccles, 2009; Robinson et al., 2018). Finally, the model displayed some evidence of overfitting
given the inclusion of paths that were unsupported by the research or theory described, such as
between classroom climate and STEM career aspirations. These concerns raise the sustained
need for a structural model specific to STEM identity to support researchers exploring its devel-
opment across various populations.
3 | PURPOSE
The purpose of this work is to test an expanded STEM identity model that could support studies
contributing to a deeper understanding of factors related to STEM identity by providing a
measurement-based foundation for researchers to build upon. In summarizing the robustness
of Hazari et al.'s (2010) and Godwin et al.'s (2013) disciplinary and science identity models
across various research contexts and their alignment with our guiding personal and social iden-
tity frameworks, as well as having found evidence of the utility of these models (e.g., Dou
et al., 2019; Dou & Cian, 2021), we adopt the general constructs and structure of these models,
extending them to the context of “STEM.” Specifically, we test two expanded structural equa-
tion models of STEM identity that focus on hypothesized relationships between STEM recogni-
tion, performance-competence, interest, and identity, as well as relevant demographic and
social factors, including gender, ethnicity, home support of science, parental education, and
|
468 DOU AND CIAN
science talk (see Figure 1). We situate this inquiry among college students pursuing STEM
degrees at an HSI in the southeastern region of the United States.
This work also aims to address gaps in the quantitative research literature related to STEM
identity as a cognitive construct, as noted earlier and described by the NRC (2014b) and Moote
et al. (2020). We differentiate this work from recent quantitative STEM identity studies
(e.g., Starr et al., 2020) by grounding our models in previously validated theoretical frameworks
and models while considering ethnic and gender group membership, as well as social develop-
mental contexts. Our research addresses the following questions:
1. To what extent does a model of STEM identity that posits identity as directly related to rec-
ognition and interest in STEM, which mediate a relationship with performance-competence
in STEM, and accounts for participant-level variables (i.e., gender, ethnicity) agree with prior
disciplinary identity models within a population of college students pursuing STEM degrees?
2. To what extent does this model hold while accounting for home-environment variables
(i.e., home support around science, parental education, science talk)?
4 | INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION
4.1 | Data collection instrument
4.1.1 | Defining and selecting identity indicators to develop a STEM identity

measurement model
We drew from Hazari et al.'s (2010) and Godwin et al.'s (2013) identity models to measure
STEM identity broadly, as well as factors of STEM-related performance-competence, recogni-
tion, and interest postulated as antecedents to identity. We borrow from their work to define
interest as a “desire/curiosity to think about and understand [STEM],” recognition as “recogni-
tion by others as being a good [STEM] student,” performance as “belief in the ability to perform
required [STEM] tasks,” and competence as “belief in the ability to understand the [STEM] con-
tent” (Hazari et al., 2010, p. 982). By adopting these definitions, we acknowledge that we
explore STEM identity through an academic lens—that is, the way that STEM identity and its
F I G U R E 1 Overview of theorized relationships between science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM)
identity and its indicators. The column of demographic and support variables on the left-hand side indicate
factors that have been found related to disciplinary (e.g., physics), science, and/or STEM identity
|
DOU AND CIAN 469
antecedents are defined is in part framed in language related to formal STEM education. We
return to this point in Section 8.
Hazari et al. (2010) measured these constructs using Likert scale items anchored at the
poles, soliciting participants' level of agreement with statements designed to assess interest, rec-
ognition, and performance-competence. For instance, they asked participants to reflect on the
degree to which they felt important individuals (e.g., teachers, family) saw them as a physics
person. The authors' purpose was to examine the relationships between these identity indicators
(i.e., interest, recognition, and performance-competence) and college students' physics identity.
They considered the three indicators in two contexts: physics and science. The test–retest reli-
ability measure of their survey was 0.7, which translates to a less than “0.04% likelihood of
reversal” (p. 985); Cronbach's alpha was 0.85. Factor analyses confirmed their expectations of
latent variables relevant to the three indicators. To further support the theorized relationship
between physics-related indicators and physics identity through convergent validity, Hazari
et al. (2010) related the measures to a single identity item developed by Shanahan (2008). This
item asked participants to rate the extent to which they see themselves as a “physics person”—
aligning with prior studies in science education that conceptualize “identity through self-
perceptions as a ‘type of person’” (p. 989).
In research extending this model to a different context, Godwin et al. (2013) used these same
items to explore college students' engineering identity as a factor of their physics, mathematics,
and science identity by including parallel sets of items replacing the word “physics” with
“math” and “science.” Confirmatory factor analysis supported the hypothesized three-factor
structures with a high degree of fit, as well as measures of factor loadings, item reliability, con-
struct reliability, and average variance extracted above acceptable values, which also reflected
the instruments' reliability achieved by Cass et al. (2011) and Cribbs et al. (2015) who took simi-
lar approaches to measuring mathematics identity. Godwin et al. (2016) explored these identity
models (i.e., physics, mathematics) in relation to engineering career intentions achieving
equally acceptable measures of fit and reliability. This consistency in the performance of the
items across different subfields and disciplines suggests durability in their appropriateness as
measures of the three indicators in different contexts, indicating that they may be adaptable to
measure “STEM-”related indicators.
Measuring STEM identity

In a previous survey study of over 15,000 college students in an introductory English course,
Dou et al. (2019) applied Hazari et al.'s physics identity instrument as a model for the develop-
ment of a STEM identity measure. In measuring STEM identity, they used a single-item (i.e., “I
see myself as a STEM person”) Likert scale instrument to solicit participants' level of agreement.
This statement required students to reflect on their STEM-related affiliation while allowing
them the flexibility to self-define the term “STEM.” We adopted this item as part of the current
study.
Using a single item as a proxy for STEM identity merits some additional considerations from
a measurement and theoretical perspective. In Hazari et al.'s (2010) study, for example, a
weighted composite score of their physics identity antecedents achieved a 0.83 correlation with
their single item, “I see myself as a physics person.” In a later pilot study involving a population
of students similar to those in the present study, Dou and Cian (2021) explored variables associ-
ated with STEM identity using responses from a relatively small number of college students
(n = 107) in an introductory physics class. In this study, the weighted composite of the anteced-
ent variables achieved a 0.94 correlation with the single-item STEM identity variable.
|
470 DOU AND CIAN
Despite the correlations between a single-item and weighted composite measurement of iden-
tity, these variables represent two distinct points of views regarding how we specify our STEM iden-
tity construct: measuring identity as a formative variable or specifying it as a reflective second-order
variable. The first approach considers the antecedents (i.e., performance-competence, interest, and
recognition) as conceptually unique predictors of STEM identity, while the latter posits STEM iden-
tity as a unidimensional construct reflected in its antecedents. A great deal of debate among quanti-
tative methodologists has revolved around the appropriateness of these approaches and the
implications each carries with regard to theory development (for an overview, please see Hayduk &
Littvay, 2012, as well as Lee & Cadogan, 2013). Although rehashing the points of those debates goes
beyond the scope of our study, we argue for the use of a formative, single-indicator variable to mea-
sure our STEM identity construct, agreeing with Lee and Cadogan (2013) that
when a higher-order measurement model is not unidimensional (i.e., its lower-

order measures capture conceptually different latent variables), its lower-order
measures do not conform to the demands of the reflective measurement model.
The reflective measurement model should not be used in this situation, and
instead, the lower-order constructs should be treated as separate variables (p. 246)
and with Lee and Cadogan (2013) who summarize their arguments stating, “One does not need
multiple indicators to locate a mechanism carrying a postulated effect, to extend a theory's
reach, or defend a theory's claims by controlling some confounder” (p. 16).
To further explore the relevance of our single-item STEM identity variable, we tested the extent to
which this item predicted our participants' pursuit of a STEM major (i.e., biological sciences, chemistry,
physics, engineering, computer science, mathematics, earth/geo science, or other STEM major) in con-
trast with those pursuing a non-STEM major. Prior research indicates that disciplinary identity is highly
correlated with career pursuits (Chemers et al., 2011; Cundiff et al., 2013; Dou et al., 2019; Hazari
et al., 2010); thus, this exploration functioned as an assessment of convergent validity for the identity
item. Independent samples t test resulted in statistically significant differences between the two groups
(i.e., STEM and non-STEM major), achieving very large effect sizes (Cohen's d > 1.0). We achieved sim-
ilar outcomes using three subsets of participants—those pursuing biological sciences, chemistry, or
engineering majors. We also ran four logistic regression models testing the capacity for our STEM iden-
tity item to predict the odds that a participant was pursuing a biological sciences, chemistry, engineer-
ing, or STEM major (i.e., all majors presented excluding those who indicated “non-STEM”). Our
regressions resulted in significance values of p < 0.001 with varying levels of effect size. The calculated
odds ratios were converted to probability of outcomes (see Figure 2), indicating a greater than 80% prob-
ability of pursuing one of the four majors for students scoring on the high end of the single STEM iden-
tity item. Given the alignment with prior research on the relationship between identity and career
pursuits, both from a theoretical and measurement perspective, we use this item as a proxy for STEM
identity. Because the analyses presented above were exploratory in nature and not the focus of the cur-
rent study, we do not include a comprehensive description of those results here.
4.1.2 | Additional items
We included additional items in the survey instrument to assess demographic and home sci-
ence capital and habitus variables that previous research (Archer et al., 2012; Dou et al., 2019;
Dou & Cian, 2021; Jones et al., 2021; Moote et al., 2020) suggest are significant contributors to STEM
|
DOU AND CIAN 471
F I G U R E 2 Plots of the probability of pursuing a biological sciences, chemistry, engineering, or overall

science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) major as a factor of participants' scores on our single STEM
identity item. The dotted lines represent 95% confidence intervals
identity or identity-related outcomes, such as career aspirations. These included binary-response

items to assess participants' out-of-school learning experiences between the ages of five and nine,
including attending science camps, consuming science media, or talking with friends or family about
science (Dou et al., 2019; Hazari et al., 2010). The binary-response design of these items accounts for
the perceived occurrence of these experiences without regard to the extent or frequency of those expe-
riences. The instrument further inquired about participants' level of home support around science
(i.e., “Was your home environment supportive of science?”), which was measured using three catego-
ries: “Yes,” “No,” and “I Don't Know.” We included this third category (i.e., “I Don't Know”) to
account for our participants' ethnic backgrounds and cultural experiences, acknowledging the proba-
bility of notions of science “support” that deviate from dominant conceptions (e.g., Archer
et al., 2012). Demographic items inquiring about maternal and paternal caregiver education levels
were coded as binary, indicating one of two education categories: either high school or less, or more
than high school. We also inquired about participants' self-reported gender and Latine1 ethnicity,
given the predominance of individuals who identified as Hispanic and/or Latine. We account for eth-
nicity rather than race in our model due to the nature of our Latine-majority population and the chal-
lenge many Latine individuals face in defining their racial affiliation (Pew Research Center, 2015).
We coded gender and ethnicity items as binary variables.
4.2 | STEM identity instrument piloting and validity assessment
Although we had done some initial work to support the application of a STEM identity frame-
work and associated instrument with college students (Dou & Cian, 2021; Dou et al., 2019,
|
472 DOU AND CIAN
detailed above), to further support the construct validity of the items, we solicited feedback from a
panel of experts in informal STEM learning and identity development (Flake et al., 2017). This
allowed us to receive qualitative feedback on the items, which had demonstrated sufficient struc-
tural validity through factor analysis, and get expert perspectives on additional items described in
the previous section. Feedback from experts did not require changes to the items used to measure
STEM interest, recognition, performance-competence, or identity (as a single item), but included
suggestions for minor revisions to demographic items, such as broadening the question of
“mother's” highest level of education to read “maternal guardian” for inclusivity. More fundamen-
tal concerns included (1) the interpretability of relating “STEM” identity with talking with friends
or family about “science” and, (2) concern over asking students to recall childhood experiences.
To satisfy the first concern, though we acknowledge that “STEM” and “science” can be con-
ceptualized along unique dimensions, we were specifically interested in how household norms
around “science” contributed to respondents' “STEM” identity, consistent with the work of
others who have studied how home contexts relevant to one concept (i.e., science) contribute to
identification with a related concept (i.e., STEM; [Dou & Cian, 2021; Dou et al., 2019; Moote
et al., 2020]). Moreover, we sought to avoid potential challenges to the reliability of our “talking
about science” variable that may have resulted from “STEM” being a less known and used term
at the time our participants were between the ages of five and nine.
Regarding the concern about the reliability of college students' childhood memories, we
acknowledge the potential for inaccuracy. However, our interest lies in students' perception of
interactions they believe to have occurred during childhood, whether indeed they took place.
Individuals construct and deconstruct these kinds of “episodic memories” as part of their iden-
tity development (Wang et al., 2018). In this way, we align with the research of Sjaastad (2012)
that showed value from having college students retrospectively consider the value of their par-
ents' influence on their decisions to enter STEM majors.
4.3 | Participants and setting
We digitized the revised survey instrument using Qualtrics and distributed a link to the instru-
ment via email to every student enrolled in introductory STEM courses at a public HSI in the
southeastern region of the United States during the Fall 2019 semester following Institutional
Review Board guidelines. Of the 5678 student email addresses included in our list of recipients,
522 responded—a response rate of 9.2%. We did not send follow-up emails. Many respondents
(45%) were biological sciences majors, followed by engineering (15%) and chemistry majors
(7.9%). Then, 67% self-identified as female, which was slightly higher than the institutional
average (61%), 66% self-identified as Hispanic/Latine, and 47% grew up in a Spanish-speaking
home. The majority (69%) indicated that they grew up in a home that was supportive of science,
and 63% reported talking about science with friends or family between the ages of five and nine.
Just over half (52%) indicated that their maternal guardian had additional education beyond
high school and 41% that their paternal guardian had additional education beyond high school.
5 | DATA ANALY S I S
We tested two structural equation models that explored the relationships between STEM iden-
tity, interest, recognition, and performance-competence as presented in Figure 1, with each
|
DOU AND CIAN 473
model accounting for different sets of control variables. In Model I, we account for two
participant-centric variables based on socially constructed demographic categories associated
with STEM participation: participants' self-reported gender and Latine ethnicity. In Model I+,
we added localized, contextual variables relevant to participants' home context and support:
perception of science-related home support, maternal caregiver's education, paternal caregiver's
education, and the recollection of talking about science with friends or family between the ages
of five and nine.
Although our survey instrument inquired about several other out-of-school childhood sci-
ence experiences, our selection of these items for the models was informed by significance
detected in our previous research (Dou et al., 2019; Dou & Cian, 2021) and a desire to capture
household norms around science. While experiences such as attending STEM camps or visiting
STEM museums may be indicators of STEM family habitus, they may also occur as one-off
experiences and are more likely to be experienced by families of privileged background (Archer
et al., 2016; Dawson, 2019). Thus, we recognize that home support around science may be expe-
rienced in diverse ways that specific items may not capture, so we felt that an item inquiring
about a perception of home support around science would be more inclusive of the various
ways that participants may have experienced their home environments as supportive of STEM.
The inclusion of our science talk item to further measure the home context is supported by the
work of Moote et al. (2020) who noted, “Talking regularly with others at home about science
reflects both habitus (a socialized disposition to value and talk regularly about science) and
social capital (knowing others who know about/value science)” (p. 9).
Tests of structural equation models generally occur in two parts: analysis of the measure-
ment model through confirmatory factor analysis and then a test of the structural paths
between variables (Harlow, 2014). The measurement model tests the appropriateness of
our items to reflect our distinct latent variables (i.e., STEM interest, recognition, and
performance-competence), supporting structural validity (Flake et al., 2017). We also test this
model for violations of measurement invariance by looking for evidence that might suggest
students from different groups interpret the items differently, which would invalidate compari-
sons across groups (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). We established metric, scalar, and strict invari-
ance across student gender and ethnicity groups. We then tested models of the theorized paths
and relationships between both our latent and observed variables (i.e., Model I and Model I+).
To estimate parameters of the measurement and structural models, we applied the maximum
likelihood with robust standard errors estimator using Satorra–Bentler corrections to account
for violations of normality (Chou et al., 1991; Rosseel, 2012). To account for missing data, we
ran a single imputation using the expectation–maximization algorithm in the Amelia package
in R prior to all analyses (Honaker et al., 2011; Rubin, 1996).
6 | R E SUL T S
We measured STEM interest, recognition, and performance-competence variables using nine

items similar to those used in Hazari et al.'s (2010) physics identity model. Our measurement
model confirmed this three-factor structure (χ2(32) = 61.9, p = 0.001, comparative fit index
[CFI] = 0.97, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = 0.96, root-mean-square error of approximation
[RMSEA] = 0.05, standardized root-mean-square residual [SRMR] = 0.03, Akaike information
criterion [AIC] = 9762, Bayesian information criterion [BIC] = 9860). All factor loadings
exceeded our cut-off of 0.40 (Stevens, 1992) and measures of Cronbach's alpha exceeded 0.70.
|
474 DOU AND CIAN
T A B L E 1 Confirmatory factor analysis estimates for STEM-identity indicators
Standardized Item Construct Average

Latent factor Standard reliability reliability variance
variable Items loading error (R2) (alpha) extracted
Interest Topics in STEM are 0.93 0.05 0.86 0.86 0.76
exciting to me
I am interested in 0.82 0.05 0.67
learning more about
STEM
Recognition My teachers see me as 0.78 0.04 061 0.85 0.60
a STEM person
My friends/classmates 0.82 0.05 0.67
see me as a STEM
person
My family sees me as a 0.74 0.06 0.54
STEM person
Others ask me for help 0.77 0.05 0.59
in STEM
Performance- I feel confident in my 0.87 0.04 0.75 0.90 0.69
competence ability to learn
STEM
I can do well on tests 0.82 0.04 0.67
and exams in STEM
I understand concepts 0.85 0.04 0.71
I have studied in
STEM
Table 1 presents additional measures of internal consistency, including standardized factor

loadings, item reliability (R2), construct reliability (Cronbach's alpha), and average variance
extracted. Here and throughout, we report the chi-square statistic, the CFI, the TLI, and the
RMSEA as goodness-of-fit measures. Adhering to Godwin et al.'s (2016) approach, we would
expect nonsignificant chi-square statistics (though sample size above 200 increases the likeli-
hood of significance (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004)), a CFI and TLI acceptable-fit cutoff at 0.90
with higher values indicating better fit, and RMSEA values less than 0.08, 0.05, and 0.01 indicat-
ing moderate, good, and excellent fit, respectively (Hooper et al., 2008). As per Hu and
Bentler (1999) we also present the SRMR values as supporting model fit with similar cutoffs as
the RMSEA, as well as the AIC and the BIC for model comparisons where lower values indicate
better fit (Hooper et al., 2008).
Model I tested the relationships between our latent variables and STEM identity while
accounting for the effects of respondent gender and Hispanic/Latine ethnicity on the latent var-
iables. Both STEM identity and our control variables (i.e., gender, ethnicity) were treated as
measured variables. Model I demonstrated acceptable to good fit measures (χ2(55) = 122,
p < 0.001, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06 [90% CI [0.05, 0.07]], SRMR = 0.03,
AIC = 10,511, BIC = 10,652), confirming the hypothesized relationships between STEM inter-
est and STEM recognition with STEM identity (β = 0.29 and β = 0.66, respectively, with
p < 0.001). Performance-competence was a predictor of STEM interest and recognition
|
DOU AND CIAN 475
F I G U R E 3 Model I and Model I+ diagrams with standardized path coefficients. Gray arrows represent
nonsignificant paths. Otherwise please refer to the following: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
(β = 0.71 and β = 0.76, respectively, with p < 0.001), though not a direct predictor of STEM
identity. Its indirect effect on STEM identity was mediated through interest and recognition
(indirect effects: β = 0.21 and β = 0.50, respectively; Sobel, 1982). We found a direct relation-
ship between gender and performance-competence, with scores generally higher for male stu-
dents than for female students (β = 0.09, p < 0.05). Ethnicity was not significant in this model.
Model I+ included additional home environment variables as controls (i.e., home support,
maternal education, paternal education, childhood science talk). A test of this model also
resulted in acceptable to good fit values (χ2(87) = 179, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94,
RMSEA = 0.05 [90% CI [0.04, 0.06]], SRMR = 0.04, AIC = 10,496, BIC = 10,687). This model
supported the relationships indicated in Model I, including that of indirect effects, and in addi-
tion revealed a significant relationship between home support and performance-competence,
with students who indicated they received home support generally scoring higher (β = 0.15,
p < 0.01). A relationship was also found between those who reported talking with friends or
|
476 DOU AND CIAN
family about science as children and STEM recognition, such that students who reported child-
hood science talk tended to have a slightly higher sense of feeling recognized as a STEM person
(β = 0.08, p < 0.05). Caregiver education variables were not significant in the model. Figure 3
includes standardized estimates of our path analysis for Model I and Model I+.
Given the similarities and ambivalence between the goodness of fit values of Model I in rela-
tion to Model I+, we compared the models by running a chi-square difference test with a scal-
ing correction that avoids negative chi-square values that can arise in complex samples and
when using maximum likelihood estimators (Satorra & Bentler, 2010; Schermelleh-Engel
et al., 2003). This comparison favored the model with fewer free parameters, which in this case
is Model I+ (χ2(32) = 30.3, p = 0.55). We present Model I+ as favored over Model I given the
results of our chi-square difference test and its lower AIC value as per Schermelleh-Engel
et al. (2003). This also aligns with our theoretical frameworks and theory-centered approach to
model development (Harlow, 2014; Hayduk & Littvay, 2012; Hoyle, 1995). We present diagrams
of both models in Figure 3.
7 | DISCUSSION
Usage of the term “STEM” has accelerated in schools, informal learning spaces, and govern-
ment initiatives. As such, children encounter the term more frequently and are therefore faced
with decisions of their own self-perception within the domain. Students may hear about a
“STEM club” or see an article about career prospects for “STEM majors” and make a calcula-
tion of who they understand themselves to be in relation to STEM (i.e., their STEM identity).
Teachers may be presented with “STEM” curricular initiatives and thus also the challenge of
reflecting on what it means to support their students' success in STEM. Some of this accelera-
tion in the use of “STEM” has been fueled by efforts to take an integrated approach toward
STEM fields (i.e., activities that break out of the disciplinary silos) in formal K-12 settings—
efforts that have been encouraged by both the Common Core and the Next Generation Science
Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Moreover, the term “STEM” may be more inclu-
sive of activities that occur in formal early childhood programs and in informal environments
where the disciplinary silos are less marked (NRC, 2009, 2014b). These usages of “STEM” bring
about the need to understand how STEM self-perception can be quantitatively described, mea-
sured, and supported. The purpose of our research was to address this need by testing two
expanded models of STEM identity development, building upon prior identity frameworks
(Godwin et al., 2016; Hazari et al., 2010).
Our results support the use of items that measure STEM identity indicators (i.e., interest,
recognition, performance-competence) for our population, presenting similar patterns of rela-
tionship as described in prior disciplinary identity research. Specifically, our models identified
significant effects of interest and recognition on “STEM identity” and a significant effect of
performance-competence mediated through interest and recognition. Notably, the interest con-
struct was least contributive to STEM identity, followed by performance-competence (as an
indirect effect), with the recognition construct contributing most. These results suggest that
although all three may be important in supporting identification with STEM, the recognition
component may be the most impactful, implying that intervention efforts solely targeting inter-
est in STEM or intervening to improve performance in STEM may be insufficient in sustaining
identification with STEM if not tied to efforts that address the recognition aspect, at least for
|
DOU AND CIAN 477
students in a similar context as those in our study (i.e., university students in a Hispanic-
majority community). The convergent validity exhibited by our models when compared to other
disciplinary identity models supports the use of our single-item “STEM identity” indicator by
other researchers, though again, the extent to which this item would serve as an appropriate
indicator of identity outside of the context of college students is unclear.
Model I+ documents the small but significant contributive effects of home support and sci-
ence talk variables to recognition in STEM. These variables had not been considered in previous
disciplinary identity models despite research emphasizing the role of these elements in identity
formation. Thus, through this work, we further extend our understanding of identity to account
for specific identity-formative experiences, which allows for more informed, identity-supportive
efforts. Our model suggests that programs aimed toward expanding children's aspirations
toward STEM careers should consider including elements of family engagement. For evaluators
measuring the impact of programs that aim to support STEM identity construction, controlling
for the effects of home experiences would allow for a more balanced understanding of a pro-
gram's impact.
7.1 | Factors contributing to STEM identity and identity indicators
7.1.1 | Gender and ethnic demographic variables
Even when controlling for home support and parental education, participants who identified as
female tended to report a lower sense of performance-competence, reaffirming findings from prior
work identifying systemic challenges facing women pursuing STEM-related fields (Dawson
et al., 2020; DeWitt et al., 2013; Ellis et al., 2016; Hill et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2018; Zeldin et al., 2008).
This gendered effect on self-efficacy-related variables is not unusual (e.g., Marra et al., 2009;
Nissen & Shemwell, 2016; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000), and thus the consistency of these findings points
to larger systemic and sociocultural concerns, particularly considering research documenting little
gender difference in actual achievement on STEM-related assessments (e.g., O'Dea et al., 2018;
Stewart-Williams & Halsey, 2021; Wang & Degol, 2017). Our model showed this effect on
performance-competence, framed academically, even though most of our female participants had
entered a STEM major, had completed at least one semester of college STEM courses successfully,
and often performed STEM-related tasks (e.g., in a biology lab course).
Although performance-competence did not show a direct effect on identity in our model,
the magnitude of its indirect effect on STEM identity (i.e., β = 0.50 as mediated by recognition)
was one-and-a-half times greater than the direct effect of STEM interest on STEM identity (i.e.,
β = 0.29). The significance of this mediating effect of performance on identity through recogni-
tion was recently illustrated in Hughes et al.'s (2021) conceptual framework on coding identity,
which highlights the power others have to confer recognition on an individual's performance
such that individuals may cater their activities to engage in performances that will garner them
this recognition. Efforts to promote women's STEM identity should consider ways to support
their perception of their abilities in STEM. However, given the mediating role of recognition,
opportunities for women in STEM to feel competent in performing STEM tasks is also not alone
likely to lead to desired changes in STEM identity if not coupled with changes in how others
recognize and respond to those efforts. Avraamidou (2021) refers to this as the “politicized
nature of recognition” (p. 32), which she illustrates through the stories of women in physics
careers.
|
478 DOU AND CIAN
Given the pervasive biases that posit stereotypes of femininity as incongruent with success in
STEM (e.g., Carli et al., 2016; Cundiff & Vescio, 2016; Diekman et al., 2010; Heybach &
Pickup, 2017; Reuben et al., 2014), it is worth questioning the risks of promoting masculine charac-
teristics attributed to STEM success (e.g., requiring natural ability, individualistic; Heybach &
Pickup, 2017). Programmatic approaches to increase representation that fail to reflect on how
women may be required to adhere to masculine norms and stereotypes ubiquitous in STEM culture
run the risk of jettisoning incompatible elements of women's gender identity and further rep-
roducing discriminatory structures of STEM participation. Rather, the STEM community should
remedy the conflation of masculine traits and STEM practices, for instance, through reflection on
the differences in how performance behaviors are recognized and encouraged differently in boys
and girls (e.g., Due, 2014; Rushton & King, 2020).
Studies also suggest that Latine ethnicity plays a role in concert with gender (e.g., Beeton
et al., 2012; Chapman et al., 2020; Gallard Martínez et al., 2019), though our study does not.
Our inability to detect an effect of ethnicity may be at least partially dependent on the setting of
the study where Hispanic/Latine ethnic identities may be more affirmed. We note that we did
not explore the specific interaction between gender and ethnicity, which would provide unique
insights compared to treating each of these variables separately (Bowleg, 2008); larger-scale
quantitative research is needed that would be able to account for the influence of interactions
between demographic variables on STEM identity and its antecedents.
7.1.2 | Home support variables
Archer et al. (2012) used the framework of science capital to demonstrate how parents from
working-class backgrounds were less equipped to support their children's interests in science,
which, in turn, seemed to relate to lower aspirations among working-class children to pursue sci-
ence careers. Studying similarly aged American students, Jones et al. (2021) used a survey to under-
stand how exposure to people who work in science, access to science tools outside of school, and
frequency of engagement in out-of-school science activities contribute to perceived value of science
in children's futures. The authors drew similar conclusions: access to resources—including avail-
ability of time, money, and interest to support science-related activities—is related to future aspira-
tions in science. Our research design deviates from Archer et al. (2012) and Jones et al. (2021) in
that we asked current college students to retrospectively consider factors from their childhood that,
according to the concepts of capital and habitus, could be associated with STEM identity. In this
way, we study the association between family-related science factors and an outcome of college
major selection, rather than career aspirations of children. Our curiosity in this sense derives from
observations in our ongoing qualitative work that many of our participants did not decide on STEM
careers until late in high school. In addition, our work differs from other quantitative assessments
of capital (e.g., Chesnutt et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2020, 2021; Moote et al., 2020) by looking at
capital-related variables separately rather than as a composite score. This allows us to separate vari-
ables that are more clearly defined and less amenable (i.e., parental and maternal education) from
those that are more open to interpretation in diverse cultural contexts and feasible in targets for
intervention (i.e., perception of home support around science and family science talk).
Although certainly caregiver education, given its association with job stability and income,
affects home support in myriad ways, Model I+ did not detect a significant effect on any of our
identity indicators. Instead, more ambiguous aspects of support were associated with identity,
aligning with previous research demonstrating relationships between family support and STEM
|
DOU AND CIAN 479
motivation (Stake, 2006), aspirations (Archer et al., 2012; Sjaastad, 2012; Stake, 2006), interest
(Archer et al., 2012; Sha et al., 2016), self-efficacy (Sha et al., 2016), and self-concept (Simpkins
et al., 2015). Specifically, we found that respondents who believed their home environment was
supportive of science were more likely to report they could succeed in both learning and apply-
ing STEM concepts, as measured by our academically oriented performance-competence items.
This in turn was associated with increased STEM interest and recognition as a STEM person.
Examined alongside our other findings, these results imply that childhood science talk and per-
ceptions of a childhood home that was supportive of science were more contributive to our
respondents' STEM identity in college than was parental education. This resonates with the
work of DeWitt et al. (2013) who found cultural capital, which they defined to include parental
education, though statistically significant, was much less contributive to aspirations than chil-
dren's perceptions of their family's attitudes toward science.
Our results are promising when considering how children from families with less formal STEM
education may ultimately select STEM careers. While Archer et al.'s (2012) work would suggest that
children from homes with less access to science capital may not hold STEM career aspirations, our
findings suggest that, at least regarding parental education, this element may ultimately matter less
than parents' construction of a home environment that encourages science-related conversations
and that the child perceives to be supportive of science. While elements of home support such as
science-related tools and informal learning experiences are more available to more privileged fami-
lies (Jones et al., 2021), our results suggest that parents, regardless of their academic background,
can contribute to factors that can lead to their children's positive identification with STEM in col-
lege by nurturing science-related conversations and expressing support of science engagement.
Findings from a prior qualitative study confirm this, highlighting unique qualities in the structure
of children's science-related conversations with parents in Latine households (Cian et al., 2021).
Given the barriers noted in previous research facing marginalized individuals in being and feeling
recognized as belonging in STEM (e.g., Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Chapman & Feldman, 2017;
Dawson et al., 2020), this significant positive contribution of parental activity on the recognition
precursor offers an avenue for supporting youths' sense of recognition in STEM even in the face of
widespread, culturally embedded stereotypes (Cian et al., 2021).
It is also important to note the responsibility of institutional learning spaces in this effort.
DeWitt et al. (2013) survey research with 10- and 11-year-old children found that the relation-
ship between parental attitudes toward science and child aspirations differed between schools,
implying that some schools do more to make use of parental support than others. For instance,
the authors suggest schools attend to diversifying images of scientists and addressing the scope
of options for careers in science (e.g., health careers) so that students can see alignment
between themselves and careers in science.
7.2 | Understanding “STEM” within “STEM identity”
The design of our instrument brings to light some important implications for interpreting our
results. We acknowledge that the term “STEM” used in our items may be interpreted multiple
ways (e.g., as an integrated STEM concept, as a collection of disciplines within the acronyms).
For instance, a student may have read the first interest item, “Topics in STEM are exciting to
me,” to mean that they find concepts in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to
be engaging, another may have reflected on a broad, personal conceptualization of “STEM-
type-of-activities,” and yet another may have interpreted that as a reference to problem-solving
|
480 DOU AND CIAN
or analytical ways of thinking often present in STEM-related tasks. This approach to allow
room for interpretation is inherent to many survey studies and present in identity studies
exploring “science” identity or some form of disciplinary identity, many of which are cited
throughout, where researchers do not overly specify to respondents what they mean when they
ask participants whether they see themselves as a physics or science person. For example,
Hazari et al.'s (2010) quantitative study on physics identity sampled college students in English
courses and inquired about their self-perceptions as a physics person. Given that the sample
included students pursuing a variety of majors ranging from humanities to STEM (including
physics majors), it is highly likely that their conceptualization of “physics” differed across the
3000+ participants (e.g., an English major may have a very different conceptualization of phys-
ics than a physics major, as might a student in another STEM major), yet this did not detract
from the findings of that study.
Similarly, we present evidence that one can think of the relationships between “STEM”
identity constructs in the same way they think of the relationships between “science” or “phys-
ics” identity constructs, while still maintaining that the various ways participants interpret
those terms make little difference in the direction and relative magnitude of the relationships
between the constructs, a suggestion that we have supported qualitatively (Cian et al., 2021).
While participants define why they think of themselves as a “STEM person” in somewhat dif-
ferent ways qualitatively, survey and interview data across participants support the notion that
their self-perception as a STEM person is constructed through reflections on their interests,
performance-competence, and degree to which they perceive others recognize them as a STEM
person. Thus, despite not having provided participants with a specific interpretation of the term
“STEM” in our survey, we found consistent relationships between their interest in STEM, sense
of recognition as a STEM person, performance-competence in STEM, and STEM identity as
those found in science and disciplinary identity research. Specifically, we note two major pieces
of evidence that support our models and use of “STEM” in our survey instrument: (1) the signif-
icant path structure of our identity model parallels the structures of both disciplinary and “sci-
ence” identity models tested in nearly a dozen studies, and (2) the relative magnitude of those
relationships is also paralleled with recognition having the strongest direct association with
identity, then interest, and then performance-competence (though the latter plays a greater role
than interest as an indirect contributor). A person who sees themselves within a particular field
or domain would tend to have high interest in that field and feel positively recognized by others
within that field. Nevertheless, we do note that our population consists of university students,
the preponderance of whom were majoring in STEM fields, and they therefore may have shared
some commonalities in their interpretation of “STEM.” Our qualitative work also supports this
idea of common interpretations, though some notable differences appear between students affil-
iating with different demographic groups (Cian et al., 2021). While beyond the scope of this
study, additional research with other populations could lend valuable understanding of the per-
sistence of these relationships in modeling STEM identity across populations, particularly in
groups that are likely to identify less with STEM and may have more diverse understandings
and connotations of the term.
As it is understood that individuals author multiple identities throughout their lives, as well
as during particular moments in time, we acknowledge that seeing oneself as a STEM person
does not preclude an individual from also seeing themselves as a science person, a mathematics
person, an engineering person, and so forth. In some cases, this multiplicity of identities is
inherent to a particular disciplinary field. For example, Godwin et al. (2016) highlight how col-
lege students' engineering identity is not simply based on their self-perceptions within
|
DOU AND CIAN 481
engineering, but also on their mathematics identity and their physics identity. In other words,
participants who saw themselves as engineers tended to also see themselves as mathematics
and physics people. Similarly, Moote et al. (2020) observed that youths who grew up in contexts
where science was normalized identified with each of the STEM subjects. These studies suggest
that efforts to affect development in one disciplinary identity may influence others. Our study
clarifies those influences for when STEM identity is measured as a unified concept.
8 | LIMITATIONS
We acknowledge that our articulation of the STEM identity indicators represented by our items
are academically centered, for instance including an item assessing sense of ability to perform
on tests and an item inquiring about perceptions of recognition from teachers. The instruments
on which we based our items (Godwin et al., 2013; Hazari et al., 2010) were designed with the
purpose of predicting career choice of college students, so the academic framing of identity is
logical given that intent and population. Our instrument is similarly designed to measure STEM
identity for this population as it relates to their academic experiences and future pursuits. Thus,
our work informs efforts to support STEM identity in an academic sense. Other ways of
operationalizing STEM identity certainly exist, and researchers considering using our instru-
ment as part of their methods or Model I+ as a framework to interpret their findings should
take note of this construct articulation. Although much theory in identity points to the contrib-
utive role of recognition, interest, and performance-competence in how individuals perceive
themselves broadly, more research is needed on STEM identity specifically to understand the
different ways individuals may see themselves within STEM outside of the classroom context.
As a cross-sectional study, our findings only support associations. Where we have intimated
causal statements, we rely primarily on prior longitudinal work (e.g., Dou et al., 2019; Hazari
et al., 2010; Smith & Fouad, 1999), but do so while recognizing research that highlight reciprocal rela-
tionships (e.g., between constructs like performance-competence and interest [Nauta et al., 2002]).
We also note that identity as a construct tends to be quite stable over time and therefore longitudinal
research designs are unlikely to find changes in STEM identity over short time periods (e.g., Starr
et al., 2020). Longitudinal studies that aim to establish causal patterns should consider exploring par-
ticipants' experiences over a year or more (e.g., Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2010).
In building upon the surfeit of research that has historically studied the marginalization of
women in STEM (e.g., see research reviews in Blackburn, 2017; Kulturel-Konak et al., 2011),
our analysis positions gender identity as a binary construct, which obscures the unique experi-
ences of individuals who do not self-identify as male or female (Lindqvist et al., 2021). Although
our use of binary gender categories allows us to situate our work within the large body of
research exploring STEM experiences as a factor of binary gender, the need to consider self-
perception within STEM in ways that reflect true gender diversity persists.
While our analyses do not specifically describe differences between those who participated
in our survey and those who did not, we cannot confirm differences or similarities between the
groups. Moreover, our data were collected at an HSI with a majority Hispanic/Latine popula-
tion that is not representative of the national population, and while our results and literature
review suggest a certain level of transferability and/or generalizability, readers should keep this
context in mind.
Finally, and perhaps most relevant to our discussion, our study was not designed to examine
how individuals interpret the term “science” versus “STEM.” We have carefully avoided
|
482 DOU AND CIAN
presenting declarative statements regarding the way individuals conceive these terms, simply
making suggestions building on arguments supported by prior literature. We hope others build
on our study to explore qualitative differences between individuals' perception of “science” ver-
sus “STEM” and how these differences may be germane to identity development.
9 | CONCLUSION AND I MPLICATIONS
Our study reinforces the robustness of Hazari et al.'s (2010) framework, even when participants
consider STEM broadly rather than disciplinarily identities, while also lending structural validity to
our interest, recognition, and performance-competence variables and the items that measure these
STEM-related affects. Thus, this work could support researchers interested in studying “STEM
identity” as a distinct construct by providing a model for STEM identity that is validated for this
construct. The relationships we identified between STEM identity precursors suggests that program
and curriculum developers should consider the consequential roles of not only interest, but also
performance-competence and recognition in designs of interventions directed toward achieving
identity-related outcomes in STEM; feedback that motivates individuals to see themselves as both
capable and belonging in STEM may be different from activities that motivate interest alone. For
instance, educational experiences should be designed to ensure that all students have opportunities
to contribute meaningfully to problem-solving tasks—roles that are often denied to children identi-
fying with marginalized populations (e.g., Archer et al., 2021; Bystydzienski & Brown, 2012). This
further implies that program evaluators should consider outcomes beyond student enjoyment
(an interest-related outcome) to also assess participants' sense of accomplishment in doing STEM
(a performance-competence-related outcome). Our work suggests that this may be particularly
important for understanding and promoting girls' construction of STEM identities.
Our findings implicate the role of parents and the home life in children's identification with
STEM. While STEM learning is typically relegated to formal school settings, identification with
STEM is inextricably related to individuals' family experiences, as supported by this study and
those described in prior sections. This influence is not surprising given the indelible impressions
that parents leave on children's identities (Sjaastad, 2012). Our work also demonstrates the
value of considering home-related variables separately when examining STEM identity develop-
ment, which could help to draw attention to the identity-supportive practices of caregivers that
are underrecognized using current capital frameworks (e.g., Archer et al., 2012). Working in
tandem with educational program developers, identity researchers may therefore consider
exploring the efficacy of different types of activities that solicit parental involvement in both for-
mal and informal settings while accounting for caregivers' situational constraints.
Our findings particularly suggest that learning experiences that encourage parent–child dia-
logue about science could support the children's sense of recognition as a STEM person, which
in turn contributes to their STEM identity. For instance, we have found in our qualitative work
with this population that children may rely on conversations with their parents to extend their
learning in directions aligned with their personal interests (Cian et al., 2021). Given their access
to and knowledge of educational enrichment resources, educators may support this activity by
sharing relevant online video channels or reading materials with families, suggesting home-
discussion topics, or by situating curriculum locally so it is relevant to families. Although our
findings theoretically support the significance of these interventions, research studies are
needed to empirically explore the impact of these instructor-led activities on family engagement
and child STEM identity development.
|
DOU AND CIAN 483
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S
Both the authors would like to thank the members of the Talking Science team at FIU whose
encouragement and feedback supported this study. They would also like to especially acknowl-
edge the various reviewers whose diligent, meaningful, and constructive feedback helped to
shape the final version of this manuscript. This study was supported by the National Science
Foundation CAREER Award No. AISL-1846167.
ORCID
Remy Dou https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8419-265X
Heidi Cian https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3510-2712
ENDNOTE
1
We use the term “Latine” (luh-TEE-ne) as a gender-neutral reference to individuals who identify primarily
with Spanish-speaking cultures of South America, the Caribbean, and Europe. Unlike the terms “Latinx” and
“Latin@,” the origins of the term “Latine” are rooted in South American social movements and its use is more
congruent with a Spanish-language pronunciation.
R EF E RE N C E S
3MGives. (2017). Annual report 2017: Global community impact. 3M. Retrieved from https://multimedia.3m.
com/mws/media/1527766O/3mgives-annual-report-2017.pdf
Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodologi-
cal, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227
Archer, L., Dawson, E., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2016). Disorientating, fun or meaningful? Disadvantaged fami-
lies' experiences of a science museum visit. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(4), 917–939. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11422-015-9667-7
Archer, L., Dewitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2015). Is science for us? Black students' and parents' views of science and
science careers. Science Education, 99(2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21146
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and fam-
ily habitus: How families shape children's engagement and identification with science. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211433290
Archer, L., Godec, S., Calabrese Barton, A., Dawson, E., Mau, A., & Patel, U. (2021). Changing the field: A
Bourdieusian analysis of educational practices that support equitable outcomes among minoritized youth on
two informal science learning programs. Science Education, 105(1), 166–203.
Avraamidou, L. (2018). Stories we live, identities we build: How are elementary teachers' science identities
shaped by their lived experiences? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14, 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11422-017-9855-8
Avraamidou, L. (2020). Science identity as a landscape of becoming: Rethinking recognition and emotions
through an intersectionality lens. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11422-019-09954-7
Avraamidou, L. (2021). Identities in/out of physics and the politics of recognition. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21721
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Beeton, R., Canales, G. G., & Jones, L. L. (2012). A case study: Science identity formation of Mexican American
females in high school chemistry. Chicana/Latina Studies, 11(2), 38–81.
Blackburn, H. (2017). The status of women in STEM in higher education: A review of the literature 2007–2017.
Science & Technology Libraries, 36(3), 235–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2017.1371658
Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black+ lesbian+ woman≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of
qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59(5), 312–325.
|
484 DOU AND CIAN
Brown, S. D., Tramayne, S., Hoxha, D., Telander, K., Fan, X., & Lent, R. W. (2008). Social cognitive predictors of
college students' academic performance and persistence: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 72(3), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.09.003
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30.
Bystydzienski, J. M., & Brown, A. (2012). “I just want to help people”: Young women's gendered engagement
with engineering. Feminist Formations, 24(3), 1–21.
Calabrese Barton, A., Kang, H., Tan, E., O'Neill, T. B., Bautista-Guerra, J., & Brecklin, C. (2013). Crafting a future
in science: Tracing middle school girls' identity work over time and space. American Educational Research
Journal, 50(1), 37–75. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212458142
Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin'! Agency, identity, and science learning. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530044
Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ sci-
entists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Sci-
ence identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tea.20237
Cass, C. A., Hazari, Z., Cribbs, J., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2011). Examining the impact of mathematics iden-
tity on the choice of engineering careers for male and female students. Paper presented at IEEE 2011 Fron-
tiers in Education Conference.
Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for retaining aspiring
scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5),
555–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21146
Chapman, A., & Feldman, A. (2017). Cultivation of science identity through authentic science in an urban high
school classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(2), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-
9723-3
Chapman, A., Rodriguez, F. D., Pena, C., Hinojosa, E., Morales, L., Del Bosque, V., Tijerina, Y., & Tarawneh, C.
(2020). “Nothing is impossible”: Characteristics of Hispanic females participating in an informal STEM set-
ting. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09947-6
Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity
in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3),
469–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x
Chesnutt, K., Jones, M. G., Hite, R., Cayton, E., Ennes, M., Corin, E. N., & Childers, G. (2018). Next generation
crosscutting themes: Factors that contribute to students' understandings of size and scale. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 55(6), 876–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21443
Chou, C. P., Bentler, P. M., & Satorra, A. (1991). Scaled test statistics and robust standard errors for non-normal
data in covariance structure analysis: A Monte Carlo study. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, 44(2), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1991.tb00966.x
Cian, H., Dou, R., Castro, S., Palma-D'souza, E., & Martinez, A. (2021). Facilitating marginalized youths' identifi-
cation with STEM through everyday science talk: The critical role of parental caregivers. Science Education,
1–31.
Committee on STEM Education. (2018). Charting a course for success: America's strategy for STEM education.
White House National Science & Technology Council.
Cribbs, J. D., Cass, C., Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2016). Mathematics identity and student persis-
tence in engineering. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(1), 163–171.
Cribbs, J. D., Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2015). Establishing an explanatory model for mathematics
identity. Child Development, 86(4), 1048–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12363
Cundiff, J. L., & Vescio, T. K. (2016). Gender stereotypes influence how people explain gender disparities in the
workplace. Sex Roles, 75(3), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0593-2
Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender–science stereotypes predict science identifica-
tion and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education,
16(4), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8
Dabney, K. P., Chakraverty, D., & Tai, R. H. (2013). The association of family influence and initial interest in sci-
ence. Science Education, 97(3), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21060
|
DOU AND CIAN 485
Dawson, E. (2019). Equity, exclusion and everyday science learning: The experiences of minoritised groups.
Routledge.
Dawson, E., Archer, L., Seakins, A., Godec, S., DeWitt, J., King, H., Mau, A., & Nomikou, E. (2020). Selfies at the
science museum: Exploring girls' identity performances in a science learning space. Gender and Education,
32(5), 664–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1557322
DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). Young children's aspirations in sci-
ence: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6),
1037–1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.608197
Diekman, A. B., Brown, E., Johnston, A., & Clark, E. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new
look at why women opt out of STEM careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0956797610377342
Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2016). 2020 vision: Envisioning a new generation of STEM learning research. Cul-
tural Studies of Science Education, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9713-5
Dou, R., & Cian, H. (2021). The relevance of informal childhood talk as a proxy for college-students' STEM iden-
tity at a Hispanic serving institution. Research in Science Education, 51(4), 1093–1105. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11165-020-09928-8
Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM
identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.
21499
Due, K. (2014). Who is the competent physics student? A study of students' positions and social interaction in
small-group discussions. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-
012-9441-z
Eagan, M. K., Jr., Hurtado, S., Chang, M. J., Garcia, G. A., Herrera, F. A., & Garibay, J. C. (2013). Making a dif-
ference in science education: The impact of undergraduate research programs. American Educational
Research Journal, 50(4), 683–713. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213482038
Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motiva-
tors of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after cal-
culus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS One, 11(7), 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447
Falk, J. H., Pattison, S., Meier, D., Bibas, D., & Livingston, K. (2018). The contribution of science-rich resources
to public science interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.21425
Ferrara, M., Mason, H., Wee, B., Rorrer, R., Jacobson, M., & Gallagher, D. (2017). Enriching undergraduate expe-
riences with outreach in school STEM clubs. Retrieved from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/k7kwn/
Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current prac-
tice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1948550617693063
Froschl, M., & Stimmer, M. (2019). Voices from the field: A snapshot of STEM education today. FHI 360.
Gallard Martínez, A. J., Pitts, W., de Robles, S. L. R., Brkich, K. L. M., Bustos, B. F., & Claeys, L. (2019). Discern-
ing contextual complexities in STEM career pathways: Insights from successful Latinas. Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 14(4), 1079–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9900-2
Gee, J. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1167322
Gee, J. P., & Allen, A. (2001). Language, class, and identity: Teenagers fashioning themselves through language.
Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00045-0
Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2013). Understanding engineering identity through structural
equation modeling. Paper resented at IEEE 2013 Frontiers in Education Conference.
Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, critical agency, and engineering: An affective
model for predicting engineering as a career choice. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 312–340.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20118
Gonsalves, A. J., Cavalcante, A. S., Sprowls, E. D., & Iacono, H. (2021). “Anybody can do science if they're brave
enough”: Understanding the role of science capital in science majors' identity trajectories into and through
|
486 DOU AND CIAN
postsecondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(8), 1117–1151. https://doi.org/10.1002/

tea.21695
Gushue, G. V., & Whitson, M. L. (2006). The relationship of ethnic identity and gender role attitudes to the devel-
opment of career choice goals among black and Latina girls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 379–
385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.379
Harlow, L. L. (2014). The essence of multivariate thinking: Basic themes and methods (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Hayduk, L. A., & Littvay, L. (2012). Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indica-
tors in structural equation models? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(159), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.
1186/1471-2288-12-159
Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2013). The science identity of college students: Exploring the inter-
section of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 82–91.
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 Sci-
ence Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20363
Herrera, F. A., Hurtado, S., Garcia, G. A., & Gasiewski, J. (2012). A model for redefining STEM identity for tal-
ented STEM graduate students. In American Educational Research Association Annual Conference.
Heybach, J., & Pickup, A. (2017). Whose STEM? Disrupting the gender crisis within STEM. Educational Studies,
53(6), 614–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1369085
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering and mathemat-
ics. American Association of University Women.
Honaker, J., King, G., & Blackwell, M. (2011). Amelia II: A program for missing data. Journal of Statistical Soft-
ware, 45(7), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i07
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model
fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hughes, R., & Roberts, K. (2019). The role of STEM self-efficacy on STEM identity for middle school girls after
participation in a single-sex informal STEM education program. International Journal of Gender, Science and
Technology, 11(2), 286–311.
Hughes, R., Schellinger, J., & Roberts, K. (2021). The role of recognition in disciplinary identity for girls. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 420–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21665
Hughes, R. M., Nzekwe, B., & Molyneaux, K. J. (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison
between two informal science programs on middle school students' STEM identity formation. Research in
Science Education, 43(5), 1979–2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9345-7
Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N. L., Lin, M. H., Arellano, L., & Espinosa, L. L. (2009). Diversifying science: Underrepre-
sented student experiences in structured research programs. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 189–214.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9114-7
Indiana Department of Education - Office of Workforce and STEM Alliances. (2018). STEM six-year strategic
plan: An integrated K-12 STEM approach for Indiana. Indiana Department of Education Retrieved from
https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/wf-stem/20181108154535030.pdf
Jackson, M. C., Leal, C. C., Zambrano, J., & Thoman, D. B. (2018). Talking about science interests: The impor-
tance of social recognition when students talk about their interests in STEM. Social Psychology of Education,
22, 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9469-3
Jones, M. G., Chesnutt, K., Ennes, M., Mulvey, K. L., & Cayton, M. (2021). Understanding science career aspira-
tions: Factors predicting future science task value. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(7), 937–955.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21687
Jones, M. G., Ennes, M., Weedfall, D., Chesnutt, K., & Cayton, E. (2020). The development and validation of a
measure of science capital, habitus, and future science interests. Research in Science Education, 1–17. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09916-y
|
DOU AND CIAN 487
Kim, A. Y., Sinatra, G. M., & Seyranian, V. (2018). Developing a STEM identity among young women: A
social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 589–625. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654318779957
Koch, M., Lundh, P., & Harris, C. J. (2019). Investigating STEM support and persistence among urban teenage
African American and Latina girls across settings. Urban Education, 54(2), 243–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042085915618708
Kulturel-Konak, S., D'Allegro, M. L., & Dickinson, S. (2011). Review of gender differences in learning styles: Sug-
gestions for STEM education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4(3), 9–18.
Lee, N., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Problems with formative and higher-order reflective variables. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 66(2), 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.004
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H., & Treistman, D. (2003). Relation of contextual sup-
ports and barriers to choice behavior in engineering majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 50(4), 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.458
Lindqvist, A., Sendén, M. G., & Renström, E. A. (2021). What is gender, anyway: A review of the options for
operationalising gender. Psychology & Sexuality, 12(4), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.
1729844
Lynch, S. J., Burton, E. P., Behrend, T., House, A., Ford, M., Spillane, N., Matray, S., Han, E., & Means, B.
(2018). Understanding inclusive STEM high schools as opportunity structures for underrepresented students:
Critical components. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 712–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.
21437
Mahadeo, J., Hazari, Z., & Potvin, G. (2020). Developing a computing identity framework: Understanding com-
puter science and information technology career choice. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 20(1),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3365571
Making Science Make Sense. (2016). Planting seeds for a diverse U.S. STEM pipeline: A compendium of best prac-
tice K-12 STEM education programs. Bayer Retrieved from https://www.makingsciencemakesense.com/
static/documents/Resources/K-12-STEM-edu-programs.pdf
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 Educa-
tion, 98(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01003.x
Martín-Paez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-Gonzalez, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about
when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.21522
Miller, D. I., Nolla, K. M., Eagly, A. H., & Uttal, D. H. (2018). The development of children's gender-science ste-
reotypes: A meta-analysis of 5 decades of U.S. Draw-A-Scientists Studies. Child Development, 89, 1943–1955.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13039
Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Jackson, C., Miller, M., Walcott, B., Little, D. L., Speler, L., Schooler, W., &
Schroeder, D. C. (2014). Developing middle school students' interests in STEM via summer learning experi-
ences: See Blue STEM Camp. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.
12079
Molder, H., & Potter, J. (2005). Conversation and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Moote, J., Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & MacLeod, E. (2020). Science capital or STEM capital? Exploring relationships
between science capital and technology, engineering, and maths aspirations and attitudes among young peo-
ple aged 17/18. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1228–1249. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21628
Mutegi, J. (2013). “Life's first need is for us to be realistic” and other reasons for examining the sociocultural con-
struction of race in the science performance of African American students. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 50(1), 82–103.
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The Jour-
nal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Com-
mon Core state standards mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School Officers.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits.
National Academies Press.
|
488 DOU AND CIAN
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2014a). Exploring opportunities for STEM teacher leadership: Summary of a convoca-
tion. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2014b). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for
research. National Academies Press.
Nauta, M. M., Kahn, J. H., Angell, J. W., & Cantarelli, E. A. (2002). Identifying the antecedent in the relation
between career interests and self-efficacy: Is it one, the other, or both? Journal of Counseling Psychology,
49(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0167.49.3.290
Navarro, R. L., Flores, L. Y., & Worthington, R. L. (2007). Mexican American middle school students' goal inten-
tions in mathematics and science: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
54(3), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.320
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
Nissen, J. M., & Shemwell, J. T. (2016). Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics. Physical Review
Physics Education Research, 12(2). 020105-1–020105-16. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020105
O'Dea, R. E., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M. D., & Nakagawa, S. (2018). Gender differences in individual variation in
academic grades fail to fit expected patterns for STEM. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41467-018-06292-0
Ortiz, N. A., Morton, T. R., Miles, M. L., & Roby, R. S. (2019). What about us? Exploring the challenges and
sources of support influencing black students' STEM identity development in postsecondary education. The
Journal of Negro Education, 88(3), 311–326.
Pattison, S. A., & Dierking, L. D. (2019). Early childhood science interest development: Variation in interest pat-
terns and parent–child interactions among low-income families. Science Education, 103(2), 362–388. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sce.21486
Pew Research Center. (2015). Multiracial in America: Proud, diverse, and growing in numbers. Retrieved from
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/06/11/multiracial-in-america/
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America's future: Executive report. https://doi.org/10.
1126/science.1198062
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the
art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Rahm, J., & Moore, J. C. (2016). A case study of long-term engagement and identity-in-practice: Insights into the
STEM pathways of four underrepresented youths. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 768–801.
Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12), 4403–4408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111
Robinson, K. A., Perez, T., Nuttall, A. K., Roseth, C. J., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2018). From science student to
scientist: Predictors and outcomes of heterogeneous science identity trajectories in college. Developmental
Psychology, 54(10), 1977–1992. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000567
Rodriguez, S., Cunningham, K., & Jordan, A. (2019). STEM identity development for Latinas: The role of self-
and outside recognition. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 18(3), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1538192717739958
Rosenthal, L., London, B., Levy, S. R., & Lobel, M. (2011). The roles of perceived identity compatibility and social
support for women in a single-sex STEM program at a co-educational university. Sex Roles, 65, 725–736.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9945-0
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2),
1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Rubin, D. B. (1996). Multiple imputation after 18 + years. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
91(434), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2291635
Rushton, E. A., & King, H. (2020). Play as a pedagogical vehicle for supporting gender inclusive engagement in
informal STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 10(4), 376–389.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high
school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007
|
DOU AND CIAN 489
Sahin, A., Oren, M., Willson, V., Hubert, T., & Capraro, R. M. (2015). Longitudinal analysis of T-STEM acade-
mies: How do Texas inclusive STEM academies (T-STEM) perform in mathematics, science, and Reading?
International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(4), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2015.04.002
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic.
Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models:
Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online,
8(2), 23–74.
Schiebinger, L. (1989). The mind has no sex? Women in the origins of modern science. Harvard University Press.
Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). In D. Reigert (Ed.), A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd
ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seyranian, V., Madva, A., Duong, N., Abramzon, N., Tibbetts, Y., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). The longitudinal
effects of STEM identity and gender on flourishing and achievement in college physics. International Journal
of STEM Education, 5, 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0137-0
Sha, L., Schunn, C., Bathgate, M., & Ben-Eliyahu, A. (2016). Families support their children's success in science
learning by influencing interest and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 450–472.
Shanahan, M.C. (2008). What does it mean to be a science person? Exploring the meaning and impact of identity
development in science. Canadian Society for the Study of Education Annual Conference, Vancouver,
Canada
Simpkins, S. D., Price, C. D., & Garcia, K. (2015). Parental support and high school students' motivation in biol-
ogy, chemistry, and physics: Understanding differences among Latino and Caucasian boys and girls. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1386–1407. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21246
Sjaastad, J. (2012). Sources of inspiration: The role of significant persons in young people's choice of science in
higher education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1615–1636. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09500693.2011.590543
Smith, P. L., & Fouad, N. A. (1999). Subject-matter specificity of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, interests,
and goals: Implications for the social-cognitive model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(4), 461–471.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.4.461
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S.
Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 13, pp. 290–312). American Sociological Association.
Stake, J. E. (2006). The critical mediating role of social encouragement for science motivation and confidence
among high school girls and boys. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 1017–1045. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00053.x
Starr, C. R., Hunter, L., Dunkin, R., Honig, S., Palomino, R., & Leaper, C. (2020). Engaging in science practices
in classrooms predicts increases in undergraduates' STEM motivation, identity, and achievement: A short-
term longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1093–1118. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.21623
Steinke, J. (2017). Adolescent girls' STEM identity formation and media images of STEM professionals: Consider-
ing the influence of contextual cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 716. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00716
Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stewart-Williams, S., & Halsey, L. G. (2021). Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be
done? European Journal of Personality, 35(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020962326
Syed, M., Azmitia, M., & Cooper, C. R. (2011). Identity and academic success among underrepresented ethnic
minorities: An interdisciplinary review and integration. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 442–468. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01709.x
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University
Press.
Wang, J., Hazari, Z., Cass, C., & Lock, R. (2018). Episodic memories and the longitudinal impact of high school
physics on female students' physics identity. International Journal of Science Education, 40(13), 1543–1566.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1486522
|
490 DOU AND CIAN
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM):
Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review,
29(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
Wells, G. (1994). The complimentary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “language-based theory of
learning”. Linguistics and Education, 6, 41–90.
Wright, C., & Riley, A. (2021). Mitigating the need for resiliency for Black girls: Reimagining the cultural bro-
kering through a lens of science as white property. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16, 495–500.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth.
Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men
and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9),
1036–1058. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20195
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1163477
S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of the article at the pub-
lisher's website.
How to cite this article: Dou, R., & Cian, H. (2022). Constructing STEM identity: An
expanded structural model for STEM identity research. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 59(3), 458–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21734

J Res Sci Teach - 2021 - Dou - Constructing STEM Identity An Expanded Structural Model For STEM Identity Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

J Res Sci Teach - 2021 - Dou - Constructing STEM Identity An Expanded Structural Model For STEM Identity Research

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

J Res Sci Teach - 2021 - Dou - Constructing STEM Identity An Expanded Structural Model For STEM Identity Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 31 May 2020 Revised: 11 October 2021 Accepted: 17 October 2021

Constructing STEM identity: An expanded

Remy Dou1,2 | Heidi Cian1,2

© 2021 National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

458 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea J Res Sci Teach. 2022;59:458–490.

effect on STEM identity (β = 0.50) than the direct effect

2.1 | Existing models in disciplinary identity in STEM fields

2.2 | Contextualizing identity development

2.2.1 | Personal attributes that contribute to identity development

2.2.2 | The role of family recognition in individuals' identity construction

Members of communities within which an individual already identifies can affect—positively

2.2.3 | The role of family talk in individuals' identity construction

2.3 | Broad conceptualizations of “science” and “STEM” in identity

2.4 | The need for a “STEM identity” model

4 | INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION

4.1 | Data collection instrument

4.1.1 | Defining and selecting identity indicators to develop a STEM identity

Measuring STEM identity

when a higher-order measurement model is not unidimensional (i.e., its lower-

4.1.2 | Additional items

F I G U R E 2 Plots of the probability of pursuing a biological sciences, chemistry, engineering, or overall

identity or identity-related outcomes, such as career aspirations. These included binary-response

4.2 | STEM identity instrument piloting and validity assessment

4.3 | Participants and setting

We measured STEM interest, recognition, and performance-competence variables using nine

T A B L E 1 Confirmatory factor analysis estimates for STEM-identity indicators

Standardized Item Construct Average

Table 1 presents additional measures of internal consistency, including standardized factor

7.1 | Factors contributing to STEM identity and identity indicators

7.1.1 | Gender and ethnic demographic variables

7.1.2 | Home support variables

7.2 | Understanding “STEM” within “STEM identity”

9 | CONCLUSION AND I MPLICATIONS

postsecondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(8), 1117–1151. https://doi.org/10.1002/

S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

You might also like