Abstract
Increased reliance on the products of STEM fields creates a growing need for STEM professionals and students interested in STEM careers. Research focuses on ways to improve student interest and pursuit of STEM careers. Recent work also examines how student decisions to pursue STEM are made and influenced. Selection of STEM as a college major relies on both internal and external influences, many beyond student control. The decision-making process requires negations between the often-conflicting beliefs and needs of students and society. Students’ lived experiences impact how such information is interpreted and acted upon. Engagement experiences to foster student interest in STEM may relay realities incongruent with their inherent interests and impact long-term career decisions. Decisions are achieved by balancing values with knowledge, but the values and knowledge students’ use are largely derived through their discourses with others. Others may impact student decisions to overcome established obstacles to STEM, but they may also bear less student-centric objectives. Decisions of higher education path are not without consequence, and ill-made decisions may incur costs. Students may not recognize the influences at play but should be wary of efforts made to impact decisions to major in STEM fields.
Introduction
Many common conveniences such as mobile phones, GPS navigation, DNA screening, and increasingly effective medical treatments are possible courtesy of growth and innovation within the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Despite the importance of these fields, and supporting their growth through supplying qualified college graduates of STEM programs, a National Science Board (2004) report suggests decreasing enrollments in higher education STEM majors, and other works indicate that the United States is not generating sufficient STEM graduates to meet its needs (Atkin et al., 2002; Herrera & Hurtado, 2011). This diminishing flow of students into and through STEM programs is often referred to as a narrowing STEM pipeline, which begins early in education and progressively leaks potential STEM candidates as they progress to and through college, resulting in far fewer STEM graduates that those who may have expressed some interest in pursuing STEM along the way (Cannady et al., 2014). To counteract this decline, the General Accounting Office (2005) put out a call for active recruitment of students into STEM programs to fulfill the nation’s need. Encouraging secondary-school graduates to select a higher education STEM major is considered an important step in achieving a career in STEM (Atkin et al., 2002; Fouad, 2007; Herrera & Hurtado, 2011).
More than half of all students entering STEM majors in higher education ultimately select non-STEM majors or exit education entirely (Lomax, 2015). This effect may be even more pronounced for women and minorities (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012). STEM students in the first year of higher education strongly exhibit these tendencies to switch to non-STEM majors (Piper & Krehbiel, 2015). Students switching out of STEM (and some who persist) commonly cited a loss of interest and motivation to pursue STEM as a primary factor (Hunter, 2019). At least half of students switching out of STEM felt under-informed about their selected STEM major (Thiry & Weston, 2019). Identification of an aptitude in an alternative non-STEM field was cited as the strongest motivator for switching (Hunter, 2019).
Much of the existing research on STEM education focuses on students’ STEM career guidance, stimulation of pre-college STEM interests, and persistence in higher education STEM programs (Atkin et al., 2002; Fouad, 2007; Herrera & Hurtado, 2011). Little work examines how high school graduates make their STEM choices for high education (Moakler & Kim, 2014). Some factors important to making STEM major choices include parental occupation, aptitude exam scores, and academic confidence (Moakler & Kim, 2014). In particular, students who select biological science majors also exhibited more flexibility in their choice of major (Sax et al., 2018). Female students are often found less likely to pursue STEM majors in higher education often due to developing diminished outcome expectations, suggesting that active efforts to increase STEM recruitment are warranted, particularly among women (Moakler & Kim, 2014). Contrarily, the field of biology exhibits a female majority amongst its students while maintaining its rigorous reputation, further encouraging highly qualified male applicants as well (Sax et al., 2018).
With biology as a potential model for other STEM fields to improve enrollment (especially of women) without loss of rigor (Sax et al., 2018), the use of advanced preparation STEM curriculum in pre-college education as a means to promote engagement and persistence in higher education STEM programs may yield more long term results than reliance on college STEM outreach and engagement programs (Lomax, 2015). Outreach programs, while effectively improving student interest in and access to college STEM majors, may fail to result in the completion of STEM degrees by students selecting STEM majors or pursuit of STEM careers by STEM graduates (Lomax, 2015). The remainder of this review examines the concept of students choosing higher education STEM majors through formation of STEM identities, and how the elements of discourse, experience, and context inherent within STEM outreach or engagement programs may influence students’ STEM identity formation, yielding potentially impersistent increases in STEM enrollment in higher education.
STEM Choice
Much of the existing research on recruiting students to STEM examines student characteristics linked to potential success in STEM (Bøe, 2012; Rowan & Lynch, 2011; Stiles-Clarke & MacLeod, 2017; Wang, 2013) and means of encouraging students to pursue and remain engaged with STEM programs (Atkin et al., 2002; Fouad, 2007; Herrera & Hurtado, 2011). Recent works focus less on what actions may improve STEM engagement in favor of examining how and why students form relationships with STEM as a potential career field. For example, Godec (2018) exposed various strategies that enhanced girls perceived science identities. Similarly, Pechtelidis (2015) illustrated incongruities between how personal identities are interpreted inside and outside of STEM fields, which may affect a student’s feeling of acceptance within STEM. Vincent-Ruz and Schunn (2019) described the interactions between STEM and non-STEM identities, suggesting that students’ STEM identities are malleable, subject to modification through experience, and may decline when in competition with those outside of STEM.
Wang (2013) suggests a key contributor to choosing a STEM major in higher education is the development of the intent to pursue STEM during the preceding years. Despite the student-centered aspect in forming this intent, it may be subject to external influences such as family expectations, cultural norms, and economic limitations, significantly impacting how students for STEM identities (Holmegaard, 2015). Godec (2018) added that while students may individually overcome or choose to ignore specific stereotypes and external expectations, their decisions are still subject to social acceptance which may further limit the realization of students’ personal STEM identities. When faced with a such conflicts, students often considered conforming their developing identities to social expectations more often than receiving social acceptance (Rowan & Lynch, 2011). Overall, choosing a STEM major for higher education is far from solely under student control (Holmegaard, 2015).
A Post-Structural Lens
Post-structuralism aids in the exploration of student generated narratives and shared discourses about the individual processes of identity formation. Researchers may gain additional insight into how choices of higher education major are realized through examination the individual truths of each student (Landry & MacLean, 1996). Since choice is derived through multiple, often conflicting influences, its realization requires “embrac[ing] the wisdom of a multiplicity of positions acknowledging the contradictions implicit in them and accommodating ambiguity” (Hutchinson & Wilson, 1994, p. 302).
Rowan and Lynch (2011) illustrate how individuals have difficulty reflecting accurately upon their own experiences and decisions. Limitations in memory, knowledge, understanding, interpretations, and communication all complicate evaluation of lived experiences and how they may contribute to a future self (Wamsted, 2012). Attempts by others to examine the experiences of individuals are similarly frustrated (Wamsted, 2018). External evaluation of students’ lived experiences is limited to an evaluation of their ongoing narratives and discourses. The abundance of ambiguity, multiple viewpoints, and variable contexts (Popoviciu et al., 2006) that complicate others’ interpretations also suggests how susceptible students may be to such influences.
As students struggle to find a place in their academic future where they can identify with their field, achieve a sense of belonging, and gain social acceptance they must examine their life experiences thus far, both as they see them and as seen by others. In doing, they engage in various forms of discourse to negotiate these alternate views and question the validity of their associated meanings in an attempt to discover the true nature of themselves (Mann, 1994; Slembrouck, 2004). Foucault (1972), defines discourse as a differentiated set of statements delivered through language. It essentially provides a mechanism to transfer consolidated packets of meaning, comprised of discursive statements. Discourse is commonly considered as an oral act, but Foucault’s work focused on written statements, and in reality any oral, written, or symbolic/iconic depiction may qualify as discursive statements (Blair, 1987). Within a discourse, discursive statements are organized to represent various concepts and ideas (Pentzold & Seidenglanz, 2006). Knowledge (and its associated power) becomes attached to statements as they interrelate and build upon other statements (Blair, 1987). Discourse then is a complex interworking and exchange of concepts and ideas between individuals, institutions, and environments, each impacting the other to some degree. The collective meaning derived from these discourses is socially constructed between each party and heavily influenced through the context in which it was delivered (Olsson, 2007).
Potential Costs
When considering the choices students make to select STEM related majors in higher education, a post-structural approach, which examines the intra and interpersonal discourses of students, affords researchers a glimpse into how such decisions are simultaneously individual and socially negotiated resolutions of potentially ambiguous and conflicting ideas. These same affordances also suggest means by which student choices may be influenced to enhance selection of STEM majors. In many of the studies described earlier (e.g., Bøe, 2012; Godec, 2018; Pechtelidis et al., 2015; Rowan & Lynch, 2011) there were legitimate obstacles inhibiting students’ individual freedom of choice regarding STEM pursuit in higher education. Efforts to improve STEM engagement, interest, and identity to overcome obstacles and increase students’ equity of choice may constitute an appropriate use of such influence. Problems may arise however if this influence extends beyond the compensatory and acts to dissuade students from legitimate alternatives to STEM.
As (Holmegaard, 2015) described, students may exhibit varying degrees of interest in STEM subjects, but this interest does not necessarily correlate with an interest to pursue STEM as a career. If students who are encouraged to choose STEM as a higher education path later realize that this conflicts with their long-term career interests, they must consider the future of their academic path. Continuing into an uncertain career choice may or may not work to students’ favor (e.g., see Hunter, 2019; Lomax, 2015; Piper & Krehbiel, 2015; Thiry & Weston, 2019), however changing out of STEM into another field (or exiting college entirely) comes with costs. For example, Foraker (2012) examines the effects of changing majors, especially after the introductory years of college, and highlights the potential negative impacts on student grades and graduation rates as well as the likelihood of prolonged enrollment prior to graduation. Sullivan (2010) further discusses the financial impacts on students associated with extending undergraduate enrollment.
The following discusses how discourse, experience, and context, issues key to clear interpretation of meaning (Olsson, 2007) come to affect how student choices are made and how students may experience external influence toward the formation of STEM identities that impact there choice of STEM majors in higher education.
Discourse and Language
Discourse is the primary means by which students may negotiate the meaning and value of differing ideas between themselves and others (Mann, 1994; Slembrouck, 2004). The collections of and relationships between discursive statements (i.e., various ideas or meanings) comprise the limits or scope of discourses (Hall, 2001). Language facilitates the assembly of statements (Graham, 2005) and is vital to the conceptualization and intra/intercommunication of perceptions and experience (Trifonas, 2009). This transfer of information is not exact however. Bakhtin (1981) suggests all language and all speakers are infused with their own values, permeating even the most basic of statements, thus there is always something gained or lost in the process of transfer.
Experience Through Action as Text
Experience plays an important role in choice and student decisions toward STEM majors (e.g., see Bottia et al., 2015; Bøe, 2012; Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2019). Engagement in action often lies at the center of one’s experience. Indeed, the performance of actions actually precedes any significant transfer of information, to others or to oneself, about the experience itself (Scott-Baumann, 2011). In science discourses in particular, students’ everyday experiences serve to support their own ideas, catalyze change in their own and others’ ideas, and promote change in their and their peers’ conceptions of science (Na & Song, 2014)..
While everyday life provides an abundance of experience, actions may become meaningful when they come to represent something important in an individual’s life; that is when the significance of the action extends beyond its initial occurrence (Ricoeur, 1971). Such meaningful actions may be self-initiated or orchestrated by others, but either way the meaning must be interpreted from the experience. As with any sign or symbol meant to transfer ideas or information within a discourse, actions and experience may be considered as a form of text (Scott-Baumann, 2011), where text here implies the statements of a discourse that must be analyzed from the point of view of the reader (i.e., recipient of the action) (Foucault, 1972). Discursive statements through actions (action-events) bear similarity to acts of oral discourse (speech acts): Both are experienced by a target, both are ephemeral constructions, and both relay some form of meaning to the individual (Ricoeur, 1971). Thus, as with any written or spoken discursive statement, there may be disagreement between the motivation and intent of the authors of actions and the interpreted understanding of the recipients (Scott-Baumann, 2011). Ricoeur (1976) further suggests that direct transfer of an experience from author to recipient is not possible without an intervening alteration of the intended meaning, influenced by the lived-experiences and interpretations of the target. While experience through action may be planned as part of a discourse, possibly in conjunction with other types of statements, the message delivered is subject to reinterpretation through the available contexts of the recipient’s lived experiences.
Context
Since the context available to recipients is highly relevant to how they may interpret any particular discursive formation, authors of discourse may consider and make efforts to supplement the contexts made available through an individual’s lived experiences in an attempt to improve the fidelity of their intended message (Shen, 2013). A primary purpose of messaging through discourse is to exert influence, sway others in the world, and enact change (Clarke, 2015). Post-structuralism supports the concept that ideas represented through discourse need not be grounded in reality if they are supported by other powerful, well-formed discourses. Indeed, misrepresentations of reality may result as byproducts of other well-established, accepted discourses (e.g., an over-realization of behavioral problems in children stemming from an established discourse describing the ideal child) (Lanas & Brunila, 2019). Discourse constructs rather than represents reality (Pinar et al., 1995). Its goal is to evoke action more than to simply inform (Clarke, 2015).
To achieve the desired communicative goals, access to relevant context is a necessity. As Derrida (1944) stated, “there is nothing out-of-context” (p. 158); interpretations are individualized, built from one’s own experiences. There is no inherent meaning outside the context used for interpretation. Shen (2013) adds that since individuals exhibit such variety in their lives and their experiences, they may draw from any number contextual references when attempting to interpret discourse; to achieve the desired interpretation, an appropriate context must be available. This need not be the only available context and certainly, alternate contexts may yield very different interpretations. Shen relates this to the principle of relevance: When multiple contexts are available that would yield differing interpretations of a given discursive statement, the most likely result is the first to have sufficient contextual backing. Essentially, the recipient of discourse will expend the least effort possible to make adequate sense of what was just experienced.
This point is critical for those who desire to communicate a precise message through discourse. While an individual may have a multitude of experiential contexts from which to draw, contexts recently constructed through carefully coordinated discursive exchanges that adequately support the original intent are the most likely to support that interpretation. This application and manipulation of context to influence discourse interpretation parallels the use of language to organize and deliver discursive statements intended to convey specific meanings.
Effects on Student Choice
The process of choice, particularly with students selecting their academic fields and potential future careers, is complicated and interconnected without clear correct solutions. Paul (1986) suggests that choice is a messy problem, one that requires evaluation of a multitude of experiences and competing perspectives, all interpreted through the individual contexts available to the students (Reznitskaya & Sternberg, 2012). This contextual interpretation of experiences mirrors that required by discourse.
Choice of academic path for students involves not only personal negotiation of interests and identity but also integration of influences and expectations from external pressures, such as from social, cultural, or familial sources (Godec, 2018; Holmegaard, 2015). Students are left to balance their decisions amongst the internal and external influences, considering what values those may represent. Reznitskaya and Sternberg (2012) however question how such values are determined and who decides which values are more right than others, and thus should weigh more heavily in decisions.
Wise students, as suggested by Reznitskaya and Sternberg (2012), will primarily base decisions upon a union of their own knowledge and values along with a consideration of any external inputs or expectations over the short and long term. Student knowledge and values are, to a large degree, developed through the discourses encountered throughout their academic careers. As suggested by Clarke (2015) and Lanas and Brunila (2019), discourse may serve more to exert influence than convey factual information, constructing a perceived reality that does not necessarily exist outside of the discourse. Under these circumstances, the origin of the knowledge and values contributing to the decisions students make about their academic careers is at question.
Throughout primary and secondary education, ample opportunities exist to establish supportive and perpetuating discourses involving action as experience. If STEM outreach or engagement experiences include meaningful actions, such as those promoting a sense of identity, belonging, or purpose in students, those experiences may be interpreted by students as part of an ongoing discourse that was designed to convey a specific sense of their personal STEM reality. As students undoubtedly exhibit a diverse array of lived experiences, the contexts students use for interpretation may vary significantly. Thus, appropriate contexts for the discourse author’s desired intent could be embedded directly into the experiences or built up over time through student interactions with previous discourses.
A simple example may be extended from Godec (2018) who examines how girls who may or may not exhibit an interest in STEM must cope with both personal and social expectations when developing a gender related identity compatible with a career in a STEM field. Individual acceptance of a STEM identity is in itself inadequate as the identity must also meet the gender expectations of her existing social networks. Given an experiential engagement activity designed to promote interest and identification with STEM as a viable career path, success requires the female student to have a referenceable personal context allowing the desired interpretation of I feel as I can do, I can be successful at, and I can be accepted in a STEM career. If relevancy theory is considered (Shen, 2013), the context would need to be readily accessible and able to outcompete any preexisting contexts that may not support the desired interpretation. A direct approach to ensuring the appropriate context would be to embed the gender roles which would best fulfil the expectations of her particular social networks (e.g., focusing on race, culture, social, education, or other particulars as appropriate for the audience). In this way, an appropriate context sufficiently supporting the intent of the authors of the STEM experience is immediately apparent and accessible to the student, and available to outcompete alternative contexts which may already exist based on the student’s life experiences.
A process such as this may work to serve the original intent of the authors of the experience, which is to increase a female student’s ability to identify with STEM careers and increase her likelihood of pursuing STEM in higher education. In cases of compensating for legitimate obstacles to STEM pursuit due to conflicting personal and social expectations and acceptances, this process may be acceptable and serve a greater good for both the student and society. Alternatively, this may also work to offset legitimate disparity between a student’s interest in pursuing STEM and society’s need for students to pursue STEM. Holmegaard (2015) and Vincent-Ruz and Schunn (2019) describe how competing or alternative interests may either work together or compete against each other in regard to STEM interest. Holmegaard further shows how such interests competed equally with STEM in relation to the choice of a STEM or an alternative non-STEM major in higher education. Thus, while STEM identity may be enhanced through the perceived reality a discourse of active engagement creates, implementing STEM outreach or engagement programs to entice students into pursuing STEM in higher education may place the (biased) needs of society over the individual needs of the student. Such biases ultimately may not be visible to students, however. Realization of how language and discourse may represent differing motivations and how this may bias student decisions develops only over time and with exposure to multiple versions of similar experiences, authored with differing intentions (Case, 2005).
Conclusion
The increasing need for STEM graduates to meet the nation’s growing demand for STEM related careers is evident. Promotion of STEM as a viable career is both valuable and necessary to overcome persistent biases and inequities in academia and industry. Care is warranted, however. Concerted efforts to combat inadequate numbers of STEM graduates with purely increased throughput achieved by way of ubiquitous outreach and engagement programs may not be the best solution. Increased enrollment into STEM is an excellent goal for students truly interested, motivated, and contented with the career path STEM may offer. The use of discourse, action as experience, and context as a gentle manipulator to offset oppression, discrimination, and exclusion of students who would truly enjoy and thrive in STEM is a worthy goal. The use of discourse and context manipulation to ensure success of outreach and engagement programs through sweeping increases in STEM enrollment at the risk of actively inhibiting legitimate competing interests and student autonomy is not. When discourse intends to shape perceived reality, to exert power over others (Pinar et al., 1995), its motives must be questioned. When applying such discursive influence over students to fulfil external agendas, academic institutions flirt with misappropriation of their power, a potential warned of by Foucault (as cited in Besley, 2015). One should be particularly wary and critical when educational discourse is enacted to achieve particular goals in the name of serving a greater good (Besley, 2015).
Limitations
Existing research does not significantly address the subject of this review. Consequentially, a variety of references were drawn from the core topic areas and unified to illustrate the issue of student choice of STEM majors in higher education. Little of the available research is tightly focused on STEM as it treats its specific topics. Additionally, the intended goal of any given experiential activities (e.g., STEM engagement) may be unknown. They may strive to overcome obstacles and improve equity and access to students or, they may attempt to bolster STEM program enrollment to meet specific institutional goals. The described studies also provide limited insight into the impact such engagement makes on students, whether choosing to pursue STEM or another field. Finally, much this work draws on theoretical discussions around the interpretation of discourse with the addition of limited STEM related research. Further work focused on STEM is needed in support of the key points of engagement experience designs, student interpretation of engagement, and attrition due to alternative interests.
References
Atkin, A. M., Green, R., & McLaughlin, L. (2002). Patching the leaky pipeline. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(2), 102.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.; M. Holquist, Ed.). University of Texas Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/40136453
Besley, A. C. (2015). ‘Finding Foucault’: Orders of discourse and cultures of the self. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(13-14), 1435-1451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.945510
Blair, C. (1987). The statement: Foundation of foucault’s historical criticism. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51(4), 364-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318709374279
Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., Moller, S., & Parker, A. D. (2015). The relationships among high school STEM learning experiences and students’ intent to declare and declaration of a STEM major in college. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1-46.
Bøe, M. V. (2012). Science choices in Norwegian upper secondary school: What matters? Science Education, 96(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20461
Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce? Science Education, 98(3), 443-460.
Case, R. (2005). How to conduct a critical discourse analysis of a text: A guide for teachers. CATESOL, 17(1), 145-155.
Clarke, M. (2015). ‘Knowledge is power’? A Lacanian entanglement with political ideology in education. Critical Studies in Education, 56(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.977315
Derrida, J. (1944). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Motilal Banarsidass.
Foraker, M. (2012). Does changing majors really affect the time to graduate? The impact of changing majors on student retention, graduation, and time to graduate. Association for Institutional Research Forum, New Orleans, LA.
Fouad, N. A. (2007). Work and vocational psychology: Theory, research, and applications. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 58, 543-564. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085713
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books.
General Accounting Office. (2005). Higher education: Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs and related trends (No. GAO‐06-114). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-702T
Godec, S. (2018). Sciencey girls: Discourses supporting working-class girls to identify with science. Education Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010019
Graham, L. J. (2005). Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, AU.
Hall, S. (2001). Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 72-82). Sage Publications.
Herrera, F. A., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Maintaining initial interests: Developing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career aspirations among underrepresented racial minority students. Association for Educational Research Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Holmegaard, H. T. (2015). Performing a choice-narrative: A qualitative study of the patterns in STEM students’ higher education choices. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1454-1477. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1042940
Hunter, A.-B. (2019). Why undergraduates leave STEM majors: Changes over the last two decades. In E. Seymour & A.-B. Hunter (Eds.), Talking about Leaving Revisited (pp. 87-114). Springer. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_3
Hutchinson, S., & Wilson, H. (1994). Research and therapeutic interviews: A poststructuralist perspective. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 300-315). Sage.
Lanas, M., & Brunila, K. (2019). Bad behaviour in school: A discursive approach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(5), 682-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1581052
Landry, D., & MacLean, G. (1996). Introduction: Reading Spivak. In D. Landry & G. MacLean (Eds.), The Spivak reader: Selected works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (pp. 1-13). Routledge.
Lomax, R. A. (2015). Pathways to STEM occupations: Advanced curriculum and college outreach programs during high school [Doctoral disertation, University of Texas at Arlington]. Unpublished.
Mann, J. (1994). A gentle introduction to structuralism. Philosophy Now, 10, 18-20.
Moakler, M. W., Jr., & Kim, M. M. (2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128-142. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00075.x
Na, J., & Song, J. (2014). Why everyday experience? Interpreting primary students’ science discourse from the perspective of John Dewey. Science & Education, 23(5), 1031-1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9637-y
National Science Board. (2004). An emerging and critical problem of the science and engineering labor force: A companion to science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Olsson, M. (2007). Power/knowledge: The discursive construction on an author [Article]. Library Quarterly, 77(2), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.1086/517845
Paul, R. (1986). Dialogical thinking: Critical thinking thought essential to the acquisition of rational knowledge and passions. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills (pp. 127-148). Freeman.
Pechtelidis, Y., Kosma, Y., & Chronaki, A. (2015). Between a rock and a hard place: Women and computer technology. Gender and Education, 27(2), 164-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1008421
Pentzold, C., & Seidenglanz, S. (2006, 2006). Foucault@Wiki first steps towards a conceptual framework for the analysis of Wiki discourses. International Symposium on Wikis,
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum as a poststructuralist, deconstructed, postmodern text. Counterpoints, 17, 450-514.
Piper, J. K., & Krehbiel, D. (2015). Increasing STEM enrollment using targeted scholarships and an interdisciplinary seminar for first-and second-year college students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 16(4).
Popoviciu, L., Haywood, C., & Mac an Ghaill, M. (2006). The promise of post-structuralist methodology: ethnographic representation of education and masculinity. Ethnography and Education, 1(3), 393-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457820600836871
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: The White House.
Reznitskaya, A., & Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Teaching students to make wise judgments: The “teaching for wisdom” program. In (pp. 181-196). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939338.ch11
Ricoeur, P. (1971). The model of the text: Meaningful action considered as a text. Social research, 529-562.
Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. TCU Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/468410
Rowan, L., & Lynch, J. (2011). The continued underrepresentation of girls in post-compulsory information technology courses: A direct challenge to teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2011.560650
Sax, L. J., Lim, G., Lehman, K., & Lonje-Paulson, L. (2018). Reversal of the gender gap: The biological sciences as a unique case within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 24(4). https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2018019995
Scott-Baumann, A. (2011). Text as action, action as text? Ricoeur, λoƔoσ and the affirmative search for meaning in the ‘universe of discourse’. Discourse Studies, 13(5), 593-600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611412760
Shen, L. (2013). Cognitive context’s role in discourse interpretation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 88-93. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.88-93
Slembrouck, S. (2004). What is meant by discourse analysis. Gent, Universidad de Gent.
Stiles-Clarke, L., & MacLeod, K. (2017). Choosing to major in physics, or not: Factors affecting undergraduate decision making. European Journal of Physics Education, 7(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.20308/ejpe.95844
Sullivan, D. F. (2010). The hidden costs of low four-year graduation rates. Liberal Education, 96(3), 24-31.
Thiry, H., & Weston, T. J. (2019). Choosing STEM majors. In E. Seymour & A.-B. Hunter (Eds.), Talking about Leaving Revisited (pp. 115-135). Springer. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_4
Trifonas, P. P. (2009). Deconstructing research: Paradigms lost. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(3), 297-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270903259824
Vincent-Ruz, P., & Schunn, C. D. (2019). Identity complexes and science identity in early secondary: Mono-topical or in combination with other topical identities. Research in Science Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09882-0
Wamsted, J. (2018). Narrative mining: Story, assemblage, and the troubling of identity. In K. Strom, T. Mills, & A. Ovens (Eds.), Advances in Research on Teaching (Vol. 31, pp. 109-122). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-368720180000031008
Wamsted, J. O. (2012). Borges & bike rides: Toward an understanding of autoethnography. Qualitative Research in Education, 1(2), 179-201. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and post-secondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081-1121. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213488622
