STEM Pathways: The impact of equity, motivation and prior achievement

STEM Pathways: The impact of equity, motivation and prior achievement

Julie McMillan, Sheldon Rothman, Sarah Buckley & Daniel Edwards

ACER

Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills are promoted by the Australian Government as pivotal for Australia’s economic prosperity and future workforce. The participation of equity group students in STEM has implications for future labour market outcomes and contributions in an area that is viewed as vitally important for innovation and prosperity. This study used data which tracked a cohort of young people from ages 15 to 25 to explore core questions around equity student participation in STEM. The analysis provided new insights into STEM pathways for equity group students from secondary school, through post-school education, and into the workforce.

BACKGROUND

The growing importance of STEM skills in the workforce has focused attention on the extent to which participation in STEM subjects is open to all students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This study investigated the STEM pathways of students from four equity groups: low socioeconomic status (SES), regional and remote, First-in- Family, and women in non-traditional areas (WINTA).

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

The research was framed to answer three core questions:

• How do the STEM pathways of equity groups and nonequity groups differ?

• What factors facilitate equity group students to participate in university STEM courses?

• Do the factors influencing young people’s university STEM participation differ between equity groups and non-equity groups?

The analyses examined how experiences of students in equity groups differed from those of non-equity students, using data from the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which has data linked to LSAY, to describe the type of STEM education and occupational pathways undertaken by young people in Australia, tracking these pathways from early adolescence into the workforce.

In conjunction with this analysis, an investigation of factors established in the research literature to be important determinants associated with pursuing STEM in higher education was undertaken to examine the notion of a STEM "profile" or STEM "identity".

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Key findings

In the analysis of pathways into and through STEM for equity groups, the findings from this study show:

• A smaller proportion of equity group students went on to study STEM at university, in comparison with nonequity students.

• When equity groups did make the transition to university, the proportion who enrolled in a STEM field was similar to the average across all university entrants, with approximately one in four university commencers enrolling in a STEM field.

• The transition rate to STEM for women entering university (i.e., WINTA students) was about half the rate of the national average. Less than one in eight women from this cohort who commenced university did so in a STEM field.

• Once enrolled in STEM at university, equity group students tended to have lower rates of completion by age 25. In general, STEM completion rates for equity groups were lower than the completion rates for other fields of education (except for WINTA). This was especially the case for students from low SES backgrounds, where one third of this group had not completed their STEM degree by age 25.

• For WINTA students, degree completion rates were very high compared with national averages and other equity groups and, unlike other groups, STEM completion rates for women were comparable to rates of completion in other fields.

• STEM degrees did not necessarily result in STEM occupations. Less than one in three STEM university commencers transitioned into a STEM occupation. For students from low SES backgrounds and WINTA students, the transition rate was even lower, at around one in four.

The analysis of factors contributing to the outcomes, specifically for entry into university, found:

• Mathematics achievement at age 15 is a very strong predictor of entry to university, but not necessarily for STEM pathways.

• Equity student participation in two higher level mathematics subjects in senior secondary school was notably lower than among non-equity students, creating a "pipeline effect", as students without two or more subjects in mathematics and science had lower rates of STEM participation.

• "Instrumental motivation" and "Self-concept" in mathematics (both measured through PISA at age 15) were significant predictors of subsequent higher education study in a STEM field for the cohort as a whole, with the former important for all equity groups, and the latter only for low SES, First-in-Family, and women, and not apparent for regional and remote students.

Summary of recommendations

Opportunities to influence these three points in the life cycle so as to improve outcomes for students from underrepresented groups include:

• In the early and middle years of schooling, pedagogical approaches should be focused on demonstrating the practical importance of mathematics, with the aim of increasing instrumental motivation in mathematics and STEM subject uptake among equity students.

• In the senior years of schooling, policies and interventions to encourage university participation among equity groups should continue and be refined, alongside a demonstration of the benefits of mathematics competency across a broad spectrum of employmentrelated and practical problem-solving issues.

• In the later years of university, opportunities for work placements, internships, and/or Work Integrated Learning (WIL) in STEM fields is critical for developing pathways into the STEM workforce.

Dr Christopher Thompson

Associate Professor, School of Chemistry, Monash University

Dr Christopher Thompson

Julie McMillan, Sheldon Rothman,, Sarah Buckley and Daniel Edwards have conducted an insightful and important piece of work shining a light on the STEM pipeline and employment outcomes for equity groups across Australia. Using data available through the LSAY and PISA, student cohorts including low SES, First-in-Family, regional and remote students and women in non-traditional areas have been followed over a 10-year period from the age of 15 and compared to non-equity groups with respect to STEM. The authors specifically sought to better understand what factors facilitated participation in STEM at university, and what differences are observed between different groups.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the importance of mathematics education during middle and senior secondary school emerges as a critical theme. In addition to reporting several contributors to a leaky pipeline, the authors’ most exciting and optimistic finding is the identification of significant factors observable during middle school that are strong predictors of persistence in STEM. These include that students' instrumental motivation in mathematics (the extent to which a student sees the utility of mathematics in their lives) corresponds to significant retention in STEM studies through to university.

The authors examine the education life cycle and reinforce the importance of engaging with undergraduates on WIL opportunities, to ensure they see the relevance of STEM to their professional lives.

This report provides food for thought for leaders both in policy and our institutions if we are to take the best steps for lifting STEM workforce outcomes, not only for equity groups, but all potential STEM students across the country.

ACCESS THE FINAL REPORT ONLINE

https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/stem-pathways-equity-motivationprior-achievement/