Abstract
University is a critical timepoint for students in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career pathway. Gender differences in the persistence of STEM students have been established, with female students more at risk for attrition from this career pathway. While the persistence of undergraduate STEM students has been a focus in the international literature, Australian studies in this space are limited. This cross-institutional study at eight different Australian universities set out to investigate how student experiences of science identity, belonging, and discrimination, which are known to impact student attrition, were affecting the persistence of students at university and in the science career pipeline. Three hundred eighty-six students who had experienced at least 1 year of university completed a questionnaire investigating these factors. Findings showed that high levels of science identity and belonging were associated with increased persistence intentions of female-identifying science students. Additionally, this same effect was found for male-identifying students in the more ‘gender-balanced’ science disciplines. Students also reported experiences of gender discrimination. Female students commonly reported negative experiences relating to group work, whereas male students reported initiatives to recruit more women into STEM as discriminatory against men. These results highlight potential ‘at-risk’ groups for attrition in the STEM fields, and provide an insight into the male student perspective on the gender equity in STEM discussion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aggarwal, R., & Ranganathan, P. (2016). Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: The use of correlation techniques. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 7(4), 187–190. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.192046.
Aguillon, S. M., Siegmund, G.-F., Petipas, R. H., Drake, A. G., Cotner, S., & Ballen, C. J. (2020). Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(2), ar12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Bench, S. W., Lench, H. C., Liew, J., Miner, K., & Flores, S. A. (2015). Gender gaps in overestimation of math performance. Sex Roles, 72(11–12), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0486-9.
Beutel, A. M., Burge, S. W., & Borden, B. A. (2019). Masculinity and men’s choice of college major. Gender Issues, 36(4), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-019-09236-0.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. SAGE.
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237.
Cech, E. A., & Rothwell, W. R. (2018). LGBTQ inequality in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(4), 563–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20239.
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.
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052.
Crabtree, B.F., & Miller, W.L. (1992). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In Doing qualitative research in primary care: Multiple strategies, pp.93-109. SAGE publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
Danbold, F., & Huo, Y. J. (2017). Men’s defense of their prototypicality undermines the success of women in STEM initiatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2016.12.014.
Department of Education and Training. (2018). uCube - Higher education data cube. Available from: https://www.education.gov.au/ucube-higher-education-data-cube
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE Publications.
Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLOS One, 11(7), e0157447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447.
Eddy, S. L., & Brownell, S. E. (2016). Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020106. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020106.
Findley-Van Nostrand, D., & Pollenz, R. S. (2017). Evaluating psychosocial mechanisms underlying STEM persistence in undergraduates: Evidence of impact from a six-day pre–college engagement STEM academy program. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar36. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0294.
Fink, A., Frey, R. F., & Solomon, E. D. (2020). Belonging in general chemistry predicts first-year undergraduates’ performance and attrition. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21, 1042–1062. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00053A.
Fisher, C. R., Thompson, C. D., & Brookes, R. H. (2020a) ‘95% of the time things have been okay’: the experience of undergraduate students in science disciplines with higher female representation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(9), 1430–1446. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1765045.
Fisher, C. R., Thompson, C. D., & Brookes, R. H. (2020b) Gender differences in the Australian undergraduate student experience: a systematic review. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(6), 1155–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1721441.
Flanagan, K.M., & Einarson, J. (2017). Gender, math confidence, and grit: Relationships with quantitative skills and performance in an undergraduate biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(3), ar47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0253.
Ganley, C. M., George, C. E., Cimpian, J. R., & Makowski, M. B. (2018). Gender equity in college majors: Looking beyond the STEM/non-STEM dichotomy for answers regarding female participation. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 453–487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217740221.
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659.
Griffin J., Brandt, C., Bickel, E., Schnittka, C., & Schnittka, J. (2015). Imbalance of power: A case study of a middle school mixed-gender engineering team. In 2015 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 64–69). IEEE.
Grover, S. S., Ito, T. A., & Park, B. (2017). The effects of gender composition on women’s experience in math work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(6), 877–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000090.
Henderson, E. F., & Nicolazzo, Z. (Eds.). (2018). Starting with gender in international higher education research: Conceptual debates and methodological considerations. Routledge.
Kim, A. Y., & Sinatra, G. M. (2018). Science identity development: An interactionist approach. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0149-9.
Lane, K. A., Goh, J. X., & Driver-Linn, E. (2012). Implicit science stereotypes mediate the relationship between gender and academic participation. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0036-z.
Leaper, C., & Starr, C. R. (2019). Helping and hindering undergraduate women’s STEM motivation: Experiences with STEM encouragement, STEM-related gender bias, and sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318806302.
Lewis, N. A., Sekaquaptewa, D. & Meadows, L. A. (2019). Modeling gender counter-stereotypic group behavior: a brief video intervention reduces participation gender gaps on STEM teams. Social Psychology of Education 22, 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09489-3.
London, B., Rosenthal, L., Levy, S. R., & Lobel, M. (2011). The influences of perceived identity compatibility and social support on women in nontraditional fields during the college transition. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614166.
Marulanda, D., & Radtke, H. L. (2019). Men pursuing an undergraduate psychology degree: What’s masculinity got to do with it? Sex Roles, 81(5–6), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0995-4.
Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., & Buck, M. L. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 5–12.
Miller, R. A., Vaccaro, A., Kimball, E. W., & Forester, R. (2020). “It’s dude culture”: Students with minoritized identities of sexuality and/or gender navigating STEM majors. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000171.
Moore, R., & Burrus, J. (2019). Predicting STEM major and career intentions with the theory of planned behavior. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12177.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Sanzari, C., Caluori, N., & Rabasco, H. (2018). Gender bias produces gender gaps in STEM engagement. Sex Roles, 79, 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0902-z.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2020). Australia’s STEM workforce. Australian Government.
Perez, T., Cromley, J. C., & Kaplan, A. (2014). The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 315–329.
Pietri, E. S., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Guha, D., Roussos, G., Brescoll, V. L., & Handelsman, J. (2017). Using video to increase gender bias literacy toward women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316674721.
Quinn, K. N., Kelley, M. M., Mcgill, K. L., Smith, E. M., Whipps, Z., & Holmes, N. G. (2020). Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16, 010129. https://doi.org/10.1103/PHYSREVPHYSEDUCRES.16.010129.
Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2019). A descriptive study of race and gender differences in how instructional style and perceived professor care influence decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0159-2.
Robnett, R. D. (2016). Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to STEM self-concept. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315596162.
Stake, J. E., & Mares, K. R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1065–1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10001.
Stets, J. E., Brenner, P. S., Burke, P. J., & Serpe, R. T. (2017). The science identity and entering a science occupation. Social Science Research, 64, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSRESEARCH.2016.10.016.
Sullivan, L. L., Ballen, C. J., & Cotner, S. (2018). Small group gender ratios impact biology class performance and peer evaluations. PLoS One, 13(4), e0195129. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195129.
Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31(1), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129106.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82.
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.
Watt, H. M. G., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J., Morris, Z. A., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2017). Mathematics—A critical filter for STEM-related career choices? A longitudinal examination among Australian and U.S. adolescents. Sex Roles, 77(3–4), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0711-1.
Williams, M. M., & George-Jackson, C. E. (2014). Using and doing science: Gender, self-efficacy, and science identity of undergraduate students in STEM. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(2), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014004477.
Yang, X., & Gao, C. (2019). Missing women in STEM in China: An empirical study from the viewpoint of achievement motivation and gender socialization. Research in Science Education, 1–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9833-0.
Data Availability and Materials
The dataset analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on request.
Funding
This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CF collected and analysed the data, and was a major contributor in writing and editing the manuscript. CT and RB provided guidance and input for the research design and manuscript editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 24 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fisher, C.R., Brookes, R.H. & Thompson, C.D. ‘I don’t Study Physics Anymore’: a Cross-Institutional Australian Study on Factors Impacting the Persistence of Undergraduate Science Students. Res Sci Educ 52, 1565–1581 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09995-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09995-5