University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Counselors and teachers’ perceptions of underrepresentation of female secondary students in STEM

(USC Thesis Other)

Counselors and teachers’ perceptions of underrepresentation of female secondary students in STEM

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Counselors and Teachers’ Perceptions of Underrepresentation of Female Secondary
Students in STEM
by
Michael J. Pratt

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Michael J. Pratt 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Michael J. Pratt certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Carey Regur
Frederick Freking
Paula Carbone, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Female students are underrepresented in U.S K–12 science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) secondary education. In this study, social cognitive theory provided a lens
to view to Silver Star Independent School District (SSISD) student enrollment choices through
the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of secondary female students, their environment, and their
behaviors (Wood & Bandura, 1989). This study aimed to understand secondary counselors and
STEM teachers’ perceptions of why secondary female student enroll in STEM and why some do
not. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eleven counselors and three STEM
teachers. The analysis showed that while counselors and STEM teachers are consumed by their
normal responsibilities, they shared their perception of student’s beliefs and that pursuit of
STEM or not is formed early in their lives. Subsequently, their perceptions of a lack of student
gender parity in advanced STEM courses result from decisions that secondary female students
make about STEM based upon the many influences of parents, peers, teachers, role models, a
sense of belonging, scheduling issues, and class rank concerns. Based upon the participants
perceptions of secondary female students, these influences and their resulting behaviors lead to a
lack of gender parity in advanced STEM courses in SSISD.
Keywords: Counselors, gender parity, K–12, secondary female students, social cognitive
theory, STEM, STEM teachers

v
Dedication
To my K–12 secondary educators that sparked my curiosity and have had a profound influence
on the person that I have become. Their passion for education as well as their life lessons have
been a great benefit in my life’s journey. I dedicate this work to my high school teachers: Mrs.
Virginia Stallings, Mrs. Sally Ansell, Mrs. Mary Dumas, Mrs. Phyllis Horne, Mrs. Penny Irby
Krueger, Mrs. Ruth Rye, Mrs. Johnnie Sue Watts, Mr. Kelton Tidwell, Mr. Barry Grogan, and
Coach Bill “Big D” Dickinson. These teachers sparked my interests in so many topics. My
interests revealed more value for educational pursuits. This value has resulted in more of my
motivation for learning. This desire for learning has led to more questions and my persistence of
obtaining answers to gain better understandings. My conclusion to date has been that “if I knew
better, I could do better.” Thank you.

vi
Acknowledgements
Throughout the writing of this dissertation, I have received a great deal of support and
assistance.
I would like to thank Dr. Martha Salazar-Zamora for being an inspiration for the
dissertation pursuit. Thanks also go to Mr. Mark White and Dr. Michael Webb as well as the
SSISD counselors and STEM teachers for their support of this study.
I would like to acknowledge my colleagues from Cohort 14. Thank you for your
wonderful collaboration and wise counsel in our weekday evening and Saturday morning classes.
I would like to thank Dr. Paula Carbone, my Dissertation Chair, whose expertise was
invaluable at each stage of the project. Dr. Carbone’s coaching and feedback pushed me and
brought my work to the highest level. She provided the right direction to successfully complete
my dissertation. Thank you also goes to Dr. Carey Regur and Dr. Fred Freking of the USC
Rossier School of Education for their support as members of my Dissertation Committee.
I could not have completed this dissertation without the support of my family. First, I
would like to thank Jennifer, my spouse, who was the most supportive person of this Doctoral
degree journey. I am so appreciative of her patience as I was away at the desk in the home office
working. I look forward to regaining our Friday night date nights, Saturday morning walks and
even binge-watching TV shows too. Second, I would like to thank my children for their support.
Jordan, Mary Ellen, and Emmett have been amazed at my desire to go back to school. I hope that
I have been a good “learn and be curious” role model and demonstrated what persistence looks
like. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents for their wise counsel, support of risk taking and
for being role models of what persistence look like. I love you all and thank you for your
support!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................. 3
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 4
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 8
History of STEM and Gender Equity ................................................................................. 8
Current State of STEM for Females ................................................................................. 15
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Influence Drives Interest ................................ 33
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of K–12 Female Students, Their
Environment, and Their Reciprocating Behavior ............................................................. 46
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 51
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 51
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 51
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 52
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 53

viii
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 55
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 62
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 63
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 67
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 67
Context .............................................................................................................................. 70
Findings for Research Question 1 ..................................................................................... 74
Findings for Research Question 2 ..................................................................................... 94
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 127
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 129
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 130
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 139
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 145
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 146
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 147
References ................................................................................................................................... 149
Appendix A: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 168
Appendix B: Qualitative Interview Protocol .............................................................................. 171

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Percent of U.S. Female and Male AP Exam Takers in 2019 .......................................... 42
Table 2: Percent of U.S. Female and Male STEM AP Exam Takers in 2019 .............................. 43
Table 3: Percent of U.S. Female AP Exam Takers, by Race or Ethnicity in 2019 ....................... 45
Table 4: Percent of U.S. Female STEM AP Exam Takers, by Race or Ethnicity in 2019 ........... 45
Table 5: Summary of SSISD Interviewees Education Experience ............................................... 69
Table 6: Percent of U.S. Female and Male AP Exam Course Takers in 2019 and SSISD
Female and Male AP Course Completion in 2019 ....................................................................... 72
Table 7: Percent of U.S. Female AP Exam Course Takers by Ethnicity in 2019 and
SSISD Female AP Course Completion by Ethnicity in 2019 ....................................................... 73
Table 8: Summary of Female Students Characteristics Who Enroll in STEM Shared by
Counselors and STEM Teachers ................................................................................................... 93
Table 9: STEM Endorsement Options for Business and Industry ................................................ 97
Table 10: STEM Pathways Course Sequence for Business and Industry ..................................... 98

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 48
Figure 2: Summary of SSISD Interviewees Gender ..................................................................... 70

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Female students are underrepresented in U.S. K–12 science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) secondary education. The U.S. Census Bureau (2018) estimates that
women make up 51% of the nation’s population yet comprise only 36% of those are employed in
U.S. technology occupations (EEOC, 2016). Computer science has deep roots in engineering and
mathematics and has been widely studied as evidence for female students’ low interest in STEM,
which ultimately extends to the lack of women in the U.S. technology industry (Peterfreund et
al., 2017). The evidence highlighted that while female students in U.S. K–12 education have an
ability, some lack of self-efficacy beliefs, social encouragement, and interest for STEM
education (Elliot et al., 2018; Gallup, 2016; Modi et al., 2012; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011). This
problem is important to address as the College Board Advanced Placement (AP) Program
Participation and Performance Data (2019) indicates that high school female students are not
pursuing computing as 56% of all AP test-takers were female, while only 25% who took an AP
Computer Science A exam were female. The problem is further amplified in the forecast that
technology occupations are expected to grow faster than other occupations from 2018 to 2028
(BLS, 2018). Female student representation equal to that of males in U.S. K–12 STEM
secondary education can help toward solving for equity and is important to keep pace with
technology jobs that are growing at the fastest rate.
Context and Background of the Problem
The Silver Star Independent School District (SSISD) is a pseudonym for a public-school
district based in the state of Texas focused on pre-kindergarten through 12th grade education.
SSISD’s vision is that every child be prepared for success in college, a career, or the military.
Further, SSISD’s mission is to educate students to become responsible, productive citizens by
2

providing innovative, individually rigorous, and personally valuable educational experiences.
The district serves over 18,600 students across 22 campuses and has emerged in recent years
from a rural setting to a suburbia bedroom community outside of one of the largest cities in the
United States. The demographic is a blend of low to high socioeconomic as a result and the
school district is balancing a traditional hometown appeal with more recent progressive urban
needs. SSISD is one of the fastest growing school districts in Texas and managing the student
growth is a focus along with maintaining an “A” rating in the Texas Education Agency A–F
Accountability System for academic and financial outcomes (TEA,2020).
SSISD has been focused in recent years on cultivating interest in STEM. SSISD has
recognized what Elliot et al. (2018) highlighted in that connecting students to content in a
stimulating learning environment can motivate students even when the subject matter is not
related to their interests. SSISD has an opportunity to benefit from a better understanding of a
Gallup (2016) survey of 1,672 U.S. seventh to 12th grade students that highlighted where parents
share with male students 46% of the time that they are better suited for computer science related
classes and careers compared to just 27% of the female students. In the same survey, female
students are also less likely to have had a teacher share that they have competence for computer
science with 26% responding compared to 39% of males. While a quantitative and qualitative
study of 852 teenage females indicates that 74% are interested in STEM topics, only 13% select
STEM as their first career choice due to lack of interest (Modi et. al., 2012). The literature points
to U.S. female students’ low enrollment in K–12 secondary STEM courses can be driven by lack
of interest to the curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In a survey of 937 women in
information technology asking their view of what technology learning elements for female
students were most important, 40.3% identified the need for relevant curriculum and 50.6%
3

believed that curriculum, including project-based learning opportunities, were most vital
(NCWIT, 2008). Further, assumptions that a lack of gender diversity starts with female’s
structural influences at home, limited role models and K–12 experience leads to a lack of self-
efficacy beliefs is an opportunity to be explored (Bandura, 1997; Borgogni et al., 2011; Elliot, et
al., 2018). Social encouragement and interest for STEM could also be explored for meaningful
programs to be put in place to address and resolve the underrepresentation of female students in
secondary science courses (Hidi & Renniger, 2006; Renninger & Hidi, 2016).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of the project was to gather information from secondary counselors and
STEM teachers about secondary female students in STEM and was focused on what they
described about why some females enroll in STEM and why some do not.
The research questions that guided the analysis of the dynamic and reciprocal interaction
of the U.S. K–12 secondary female students, their environment, and behaviors were:
1. How do middle and high school counselors and STEM teachers perceive their role in
having female students enroll in STEM courses?
2. In what ways are the challenges and benefits of taking STEM courses in middle and high
school schools for female students described by middle and high school counselors and
STEM teachers?
Importance of the Study
For STEM focused organizations to have an innovative impact for customers, maintain
competitive advantage and achieve business performance benefits, a gender equitable, diverse,
and inclusive workforce that is STEM literate must exist (Gartner, 2012; Herring, 2017). Change
can occur through the creation of greater interest of females in K–12 STEM courses (Peterfreund
4

et al., 2017). As a school board member for SSISD, I believe that I can be a change agent with
my fellow school board members. My theory of change was that U.S. K–12 secondary female
students can be as equally represented as male students. School board members make policy and
that policy results in changes in our schools. The intent of the study was to potentially provide
usable information for board members to make informed decisions on policy to drive change in
increasing female enrollment in secondary STEM courses.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Theoretical Framework
I utilized the social cognitive theory (Wood & Bandura, 1989) as a lens to focus this
problem of underrepresentation of U.S. female students in secondary education STEM courses.
Social cognitive theory views human learning through the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of
the person, the environment, and the behaviors (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Understanding the
experiences of underrepresented female students, their interactions in their environment and the
behaviors that result is important where change agents can help solve for their problems.
Theory of change is about how a researcher believes that a problem exists, and that social
change can occur over time (Aliyu et al., 2015; Tuck & Yang, 2014). My view of the problem of
underrepresentation was from my intersecting identities of being a male in management at a U.S.
technology company as well as a school board member in SSISD. I would add that utilizing the
social cognitive theory and understanding of the issues at the intersection of my role on a K–12
school board to create awareness, policy and practices addressing the removal of obstacles along
their journey in secondary education and into the workplace for female students in STEM.
5

Methodology
I utilized a qualitative method for my research design. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
highlighted that “Qualitative research is based on the belief that knowledge is constructed by
people in an ongoing fashion as they engage in and make meaning of an activity, experience, or
phenomenon” (p. 23). In my qualitative research, I explored the meaning of what participants
perceived about the problem and the set of factors that emerged in the data surrounding the
underrepresentation of female students in U.S. secondary STEM courses (Creswell & Cresswell,
2018).
Definition of Terms
• Diversity refers to the differences in race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation
and socioeconomic access and opportunity in a setting (Bogler, 2020). This dissertation
intentionally focused on gender.
• Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with
a person's biological sex (APA, 2012).
• Underrepresentation is a lack of gender, race and/or ethnicity representation in STEM
education courses or occupations (NSF, 2020).
• STEM during this project was the acronym for education curriculum focused on science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. STEM curriculum was intended to empower
students with the skills to succeed in an ever-changing technology country and world.
STEM provided a solid knowledge base needed for innovation in technology that fuels
the economy and meets the jobs demand of the highest growing occupations for the next
eight years (BLS, 2018).
6

• The U.S. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council (NAE &
NRC, 2009) defined STEM as:
Science is the study of the natural world, human behavior, interaction, and social and
economic systems. It includes studies of the laws of nature associated with physics,
chemistry, and biology and the treatment or application of facts, principles, concepts, or
conventions associated with these disciplines (p.17).
• Technology comprises the entire system of people and organizations, knowledge,
processes, and devices that go into creating and operating technological artifacts, as well
as the artifacts themselves (NAE & NRC, 2009, p.17).
• Engineering is both a body of knowledge—about the design and creation of human-made
products—and a process for solving problems (NAE & NRC, 2009, p.17).
• Mathematics is the study of patterns and relationships among quantities, numbers, and
shapes. Mathematics includes theoretical mathematics and applied mathematics (NAE &
NRC, 2009, p.17).
• STEM Jobs refers to “professional and technical support occupations in the fields of
computer science and mathematics, engineering, and life and physical sciences” (Beede
et al., 2011, p. 2).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study was organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduced the study as well as
the context and background of the problem, the statement of the problem, the research questions,
the importance of the study and an overview of the study’s theoretical framework and
methodology. Chapter Two was a literature review of the research problem. The literature
reviewed included the social cognitive theory that highlighted the roles of the K–12 institution,
7

theoretical concepts of students, their environment, and their behaviors in U.S. secondary school
context. The literature also highlighted student choice in STEM courses in secondary education.
Based on the literature reviewed, a conceptual framework for the study was presented. Chapter
Three described the research methods of the study beginning with an overview of the research
design. Chapter Three included the research setting, the participants as well as sampling
methods, data collection methods, and the data analysis process utilized. Further, Chapter Three
contained the researcher’s positionality, identified threats to internal and external validity,
reliability, any ethics issues as well as limitations and delimitations. Chapter Four presented the
research questions results and the findings. Chapter Five summarized the findings, provided
recommendations, identified implications and limitations of the study, and discussed areas for
future research.

8

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The literature reviewed in this chapter highlighted social and structural organizational
issues impacting females enrolling in elective, secondary STEM classes in US public schools.
Secondary female students may experience a lack of self-efficacy beliefs, social encouragement,
and interest for STEM (Elliot et al., 2018; Gallup, 2016; Modi et al., 2012; Rotgans & Schmidt,
2011). This experience is influenced by the existence of gender ability stereotypes from parents,
peers, teachers, and their school environment that ultimately affects their choices to pursue
STEM or not. The literature reviewed will present theory and research to better understand the
problem of underrepresentation of secondary female STEM students in U.S. K–12 education.
Social cognitive theory is used as a lens to view human learning, as applied to female students
and STEM education, through the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the person, the
environment, and the behaviors (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
History of STEM and Gender Equity
In relation to the history of the United States, STEM is a recent acronym when referring
to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as disciplines in U.S. schools (Berube,
2014). Although indigenous cultures living in the United States. prior to colonization had forms
of engineering, STEM was not a consideration in the founding of the United States. Additionally,
George Washington was considered to be the first engineer with his focus on fostering civil
engineering school and corresponding infrastructure with the construction of roads, bridges,
railways, and canals, as well as harbors along the east coast of the United States. Washington’s
sponsorship of education and transportation technologies became a large contributor to the U.S.
Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century (Berube, 2014). Concurrent to this period, elementary
education was born out of European influence with focus on liberal education. By the mid-1800s,
9

U.S. schools’ curriculum was differentiated based upon gender. Male education was directed
towards physics, astronomy, and engineering, while female education was focused on biology
and natural sciences (Schiebinger, 2013). Formal recognition of science in U.S. schools began in
the 1890s with the introduction of science education as part of “eight years of elementary and
four years of high school” (Berube, 2014, p. 6). At this time, elementary science was established
through the National Educational Association (NEA) and based upon natural science
observations of the natural world while high school would be based upon curriculum with
practical application in a laboratory setting (NEA, 1894). While observation was emerging, an
issue was that students experienced science only through reading. While reading was the primary
means to learn of science in the mid-19th century, science was eventually displaced in textbooks
in the late 19th century in favor of greater focus on literature (Rillero, 2010). Further, science
education was separated from “readers” (p.1) to become a separate subject that included earth,
physical and biological content.
In maintaining a national perspective when reviewing STEM history, the emphasis on
science and technology in the United States began in earnest during the second half of the 20th
century with the creation of The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) by
President Eisenhower. NASA was formed in 1958 to focus on aeronautics and space research as
a competing response to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics space flight launch of the
Sputnik satellite in 1957 (Berube, 2014; NASA, 2020). At this time, both the United States and
the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics national politics and ideology was dominated by
the chilly relations labeled as the Cold War as each competed in a space launch competition to
ensure dominance of their hemispheres of influence (Sempa, 2002). In 1961, President Kennedy
continued President Eisenhower's determination by promoting scientific innovations and
10

technological feats of landing an American on Earth’s Moon (Neff, 2020). Throughout the 1970s
and 1980s, the Cold War anxiety created an increased emphasis in science and technology
leading to significant public and governmental support for the enhancement of STEM education
(Stephens, 1998). Further, in the 1980s technological advancements of cell phones and personal
computers, along with the artificial heart, space shuttle launches began to make national science
programs to be more mainstream with the national goals to coordinate science and education
policy. In response to American students’ unfavorable comparisons to 19 other industrialized
nations’ students and the belief that the U.S. education system was failing to meet the needs for a
competitive workforce, the U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education published A
Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform that included 38 recommendations to
improve academic standards and educational outcomes (NCOEE, 1983). Relative to STEM, the
NCOEE commission made one recommendation that high school curriculum include (a) 4 years
of English; (b) 3 years of mathematics; (c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies; and
(e) one-half year of computer science. In the 1990s policies from the National Science Education
Standards and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics provided U.S. educators with
standards and guidelines for the establishment of curriculum for K–12 students in STEM fields
(Neff, 2020).
The use of the acronym STEM first appeared in 1998 as a particular way to describe the
four subjects of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Ehlers, 2010). The use of
STEM was adopted by legislators as well as the business and education community while the
character of STEM education evolved from a set of overlapping subjects into a more integrated
and interdisciplinary approach to student learning and skill development (Committee on STEM
Education, 2018). At this time, efforts in the U.S. House of Representative’s Science sub-
11

committee of the Education and Labor Committee were being made to rewrite science and
education policy to demonstrate that each field had a relationship and interdependence in U.S
education and vocations (Ehlers, 2010). The resulting legislative work to improve math and
science education entitled Unlocking Our Future: Toward a National Science Policy was
published in late 1998.
Throughout the early part of the 21st century, educational STEM opportunities and
training for students increased as a response to the “non-competitiveness” of the United States.
academic comparisons to international peers (Neff, 2020, p. 3). Part of the response included the
National Science Foundation Act reauthorization legislation to develop master teachers with
strong backgrounds in math and science (Ehlers, 2010). Further, President Bush’s No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 included math and science business partnership programs as well as held
schools responsible for making sure students performed at a proficient academic level.
In 2003, The National Science Board “sounded an alarm” (Halpern et al., 2007, p.1).
about critical workforce shortages in math and science jobs with concern that the United States
would not sustain global leadership in science and technology. Concern existed that lack of talent
with the right skills would affect a wide range of the U.S. domestic economy and homeland
security (Halpern et al., 2007). In 2009, President Obama continued to highlight the need for
improvements in STEM education to meet the jobs of the future and address the U.S. K–12
system “middle of the pack” (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
[OECD], 2013, p. 50) in comparison to 33 of the OECD countries that span the globe
(Committee on STEM Education, 2018). As a contributor to the national discussion, a detail
cited was that only 14.9% of engineers in the United States were women compared to Romania’s
51% (NCWGE, 2017). Beede et al. (2011) highlighted that while women comprised more than
12

half of college students, just 25% earned bachelor’s degrees in computer science and
engineering. A report published by the U.S. Department of Commerce in partnership with the
U.S. Census Bureau informed U.S. policy leaders that while women were 47% of the U.S.
population, they only held 25% of the STEM jobs (Beede et al., 2011). While there is a gender
gap in women’s representation in STEM, women of color were just 11.5% of the STEM
workforce compared to White women at 18% (NSF, 2017). Additionally, Asian women
represented 6% while Black women represented 2.5%. In comparison, Asian men represented
13.7% while Black men represented 3.2% (NSF, 2017).
The findings of the Beede et al. (2011) report also shared that possible factors for this
variance included “a lack of female role models, gender stereotyping, and less family-friendly
flexibility in the STEM fields” (p. 1). The report provided evidence of the STEM gender
disparity and reinforced U.S. policy makers’ desire to encourage and support women in their
STEM education and careers. As a result, President Obama advocated for STEM to address the
underrepresentation of women and minorities with the Educate to Innovate Initiative (Education
Committee on STEM & Council, 2013). This U.S. Federal STEM strategic plan called for
making investments toward a goal of preparing and recruiting100,000 new STEM teachers by
2020 (Education Committee on STEM & Council, 2013; Ehlers, 2010).
Concurrent to the mandate to address underrepresentation of female enrollment and
increase the number of effective teachers in STEM, K–12 science curriculum standards were
revised by the Board on Science Education of the National Research Council (NRC, 2012) to the
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). A large tenet of the NRC’s NGSS was intended to
move high school students from thinking about the different science courses of Biology,
Chemistry, Physics, or Geology as memorization of disconnected facts to that of a cohesive
13

understanding of integrated and interrelated science concepts (NRC, 2012). NGSS better
organizes the student learning process by aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment to
science disciplines core ideas, their scientific and engineering practices, and cross cutting
concepts (Kaldaras et al., 2020; NRC, 2012). NGSS’s intention is to shift science educations to
focus more on student’s abilities to analyze complex problems and think critically in effort to
resemble the practice of science more closely in the real world (Kaldaras et al., 2020; NRC,
2013).
In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed and replaced NCLB as U.S. K–
12 public education policy and continued to affirm the federal government's expanded role for
STEM in public education (Neff, 2020). The trend from 1998 continued into 2015 with women
underrepresented while being half the population yet only 24 % of the overall 8.6 million STEM
workforce (Noonan, 2017). At this time, women receiving STEM degrees were concentrated in
the physical and life sciences, while men with STEM degrees concentrated in engineering.
Noonan (2017) indicated that women were less likely than men to work in STEM jobs and were
instead opting for more careers in the healthcare and education sectors. In this time, the
appreciation for the benefits of critical thinking and creativity associated with the arts and music
was growing (Peppler & Wohlwend, 2018). Advocates for more creative expression argued that
STEM was less creative, and more logic driven than fine arts and wanted to couple STEM and
fine arts (Peppler & Wohlwend, 2018). Further, the increased focus on infusing creativity into
STEM has evolved into science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) with
the hope of also attracting even more historically underrepresented students in addition to
females, such as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. While STEAM is an evolving approach
on curriculum, instruction and assessment standards, the integration of fine arts has been
14

popularized by art and design in secondary schools yet is not fully mainstreamed into
comprehensive high schools due to dependence on teacher professional development and
resources (Herro et al., 2018; Peppler & Wohlwend, 2018).
In 2017, President Trump signed the INSPIRE Women Act that required NASA to
encourage women and girls to pursue careers in STEM fields. During the Trump administration,
STEM continued to be driven at a national level and included the teaching of academic concepts
through real-world applications to students and combined formal and informal learning in and
outside of school (Committee on STEM Education, 2018). While performance measurements are
in development, NASA’s Office of STEM Engagement reported that its higher education awards
to women had increased 9.6% in 2020 to 43.3% and its intern for females represents 37%
indicating an increase in engagement and participation (NASA, 2020).
Over the course of the history of the United States, STEM has evolved from the founding
father’s recognition of math and engineering infrastructure needs to more than just reading about
science in textbooks. The study of STEM now offers students opportunities to make sense of the
integrated curriculum that includes science, technology, engineering, and mathematics rather
than learning fragmented bits and pieces of knowledge and practices about each of the four
subjects (Dugger, 2010). Additionally, infusing STEM with creativity to form STEAM will
likely become more mainstream (Peppler & Wohlwend, 2018). The history of STEM has been
formed by a recognition at the national level that career technical training, college-level study,
and increasing technical skills in the workplace are heavily dependent upon elementary and
secondary school education experiences (Committee on STEM Education, 2018).
15

Current State of STEM for Females
The current state of STEM education has evolved from a convenient clustering of four
subjects to a more cohesive approach to curriculum, instruction and assessment based upon the
implementation of nationally developed content standards in schools. Today, science and
mathematics are well-established as core curriculum in grades K–12 in U.S. schools while
engineering and technology are considered to be elective subjects in most states (Dugger, 2010).
In the state of Texas, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) integrated the four subjects of
STEM in curriculum and defines STEM as a method of hands-on teaching and learning where
students learn to apply academic content by creatively solving real-world problems (TEA, 2020).
Additionally, the TEA’s intention of working with school districts is to promote innovation
through design-based thinking to prepare students for future career opportunities. Design-based
thinking builds on the standards-based math and science curriculum and instruction yet goes
further by teachers and fellow students challenging each other to apply what they have learned to
solve problems. Students’ knowledge is enhanced though encouragement of their observation,
interviewing, brainstorming and collaboration skills. These skills can also be applied to find and
define problems in other subjects and even outside the classroom. While the TEA is focused on
ensuring that Texas students excel in standardized testing, they are also focused on ensuring that
teachers do not teach to the test as these skills are important to the preparation of the future
workforce (Dotson et al., 2020; Mueller et al., 2020; TEA, 2020).
Modern “STEM education imparts not only skills such as critical thinking, problem
solving, higher order thinking, design, and inference, but also behavioral competencies such as
perseverance, adaptability, cooperation, organization, and responsibility” (Committee on STEM
Education, 2018, p.1). While there is good alignment at the national and state level that STEM
16

competencies in elementary and secondary levels are important to a science and engineering
capable workforce, according to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study,
U.S. eighth grade performance results continue to rank the United States. in the middle of
compared to other high-income countries in mathematics and science assessments (Averett et al.,
2018). Similarly, U.S. national assessments of mathematics show little to no growth in scores
over the past decade (NSF, 2020).
While there are differences among states in the United States, the National Science
Board’s science and engineering indicators help TEA policymakers better able to assess student
performance relative to other states. When comparing Texas elementary and secondary education
mathematics achievement indicators to the rest of the United States, Texas fourth grade
mathematics proficiency is above while eighth grade mathematics performance has dipped below
(NSC, 2020). Texas exceeds U.S. peer states in fourth grade and eighth grade science. These
indicators provide data on fourth grade and eighth grade science and mathematics performance
and proficiency and assist in helping to formulate science and technology policies at both the
state and national levels (NSC, 2020).
While Texas policy makers believe that mathematics skills and competency are
considered essential to success in STEM fields, enrollment data in mathematics is a good
indicator of progress yet it demonstrates that not all students are enrolled at the same rate. While
34% of Asian students were enrolled in Algebra I in eighth grade, eighth grade black students
were only enrolled at 12% in the same grade. Additionally, female students enrolled in Algebra I
in eighth grade have a higher percentage enrollment at 25% compared to male students at 22%
(DOE, 2018). This higher level of enrollment in Algebra I is important in that historically male
students have outperformed female students in math, but in the past few decades the gender
17

performance differences have narrowed as the female students taking Algebra I are performing
as well as male students on average (Hyde et al., 2008). While those females that are enrolling
and equally performing in certain math courses is encouraging, Hyde et al. (2008) also indicates
that this performance is “insufficient to explain lopsided gender patterns in participation in some
STEM fields” (p. 495). While there has also been an increased focus at the state level as well as
emphasis by the National Science Foundation, coupled with U.S Federal funding, to address how
the United States can compete better globally, there remains a lack of female involvement in
STEM fields (Committee on STEM Education, 2018).
Increasing the representation of women in STEM in college and in the workforce has
been a mandate for U.S. education. Although women are now outnumbering men in college
graduation rates, men continue to outnumber women in most STEM majors and in STEM jobs in
the workforce (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Noonan, 2017; NRC, 2012; NSB, 2016). Among
students who enrolled in a two-year college and students who enrolled in a four-year college, a
lower percentage of female students than of male students achieved postsecondary STEM
success (DOE, 2016). Female Texas high school students were less likely than male students to
declare and persist in a STEM major and complete a STEM degree (Borman et al., 2017).
While STEM related student performance continues to be a national focus, the teacher-
oriented initiatives of the last 10 years have yielded increases in the percent of certificates and
teaching time for K−12 mathematics and science teachers. 91% of public middle and high school
mathematics and science teachers were fully certified in 2011 (NSF, 2018). Further, more than
80% of public middle and high school mathematics teachers and 90% of science teachers have
more than 3 years of teaching experience.
18

The literature highlighted the history and current state of STEM in the U.S as it pertains
to females. In the last 25 years there has been a more cohesive approach to STEM curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. Further, based upon the implementation of nationally developed
content standards, and even NGSS, in schools coupled with a better understanding that the
United States is not competing well in a global economy and a recognition that females are
underrepresented in college degrees and in the workforce. Only in the last decade or so has there
been a recognition of the underrepresentation of females in STEM. While reasons are not fully
settled, it may be that their experiences include bias resulting from gender-based stereotypes and
a lack of social encouragement that leads to a lack of self-efficacy beliefs and interest.
Female Students’ Childhood and Adolescence Experiences
Female students experience cultural social bias at an early age due to gender stereotypes
that are derived from parents, peers, teachers, counselors, and media influences. Gender refers to
the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex
(APA, 2012). Gender stereotyping is another person’s belief about other individuals, their
behaviors and their competence based on their group membership (Fiske, 1993). In the case of
STEM in the United States, there is a pervasive belief that has been reinforced with strong
cultural messages from influencers that associate greater mathematics ability with males more
than females (NSF, 2003). These gender ability stereotypes influence females’ thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors in childhood and adolescent years that ultimately affects their persistence
to pursue STEM or not.
Gender Ability Stereotype
Children learn early that gender-based role differences carry different expectations, and
this can influence their academic interests and STEM choices. Children learn about gender
19

differences as they learn from their environment about gender-based roles and expectations
(Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Simpkins et al., 2005). In early childhood, awareness of gender
differences begins to emerge and manifest through their parents and social groups expression of
career or occupation interests (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014). These occupational interests exhibit
gender differences that have been developed throughout the socialization and history of women
and men (Eccles, 1994).
Children are more influenced by the behavior and attitudes of same gender adults. In two
different studies, with a balanced set of female and male children as subjects with a balanced set
of female and male adult teachers, Bussey and Bandura (1984) concluded that children are more
likely to mirror the behavior and attitudes of their same gender compared to the opposite gender
adult. Later in life interviews of adolescent students were conducted after they watched
television programs that depicted gender constancy and projection of male and female power in
the videos. The findings reinforced that adolescent females were not as influenced and less likely
to see male adults as models for themselves (Bandura, 1994). Reinforcement of gender-based
role examples depict males as scientists, engineers, technologists, and mathematicians (Dasgupta
& Stout, 2014). For females, the expectations of gender-based roles are not STEM related and
develop from their socialization practices at home, in school, and among peers (Eccles, 2011).
While parents are important to female students’ perceptions of STEM, parents carrying a gender
based occupational view can be heavy influencers of their student’s academic interests and
provide females and males with different treatment regarding their talents, education, and
vocational options (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Simpkins et al., 2005).
The literature provides evidence that parents are early socializers of their children’s
academic interests and a child’s achievement is higher when parents have positive views of their
20

children’s math and science abilities (Frome & Eccles, 1998; Leaper et al., 2011). Additionally,
while both parents positive view of their children’s abilities influences a child’s confidence, the
mother typically has closer relationship and is a larger influence than the father. While the
relationship to a parent is important to academic achievement, the conscious and unconscious
bias by parents affects a student’s motivation for STEM topics. In a Google (2016) survey of
1,672 seventh to 12th grade students, parents shared with male students 46% of the time that they
would be better suited for computer science than 27% with females.
The literature highlighted that female students can suffer from stereotypes. In the case of
computer science, these stereotypes then can result in a lack of encouragement from adults to
learn this STEM discipline. In a Google (2014) survey of 1,600 pre-college and college U.S. men
and women, exposure to and participation in computer science curriculum in high school
accounted for 22.4% of the explainable factors influencing their decision to pursue computing
interests. While social encouragement comprised 28.1% of the explainable factors, this data
point was reinforced in a survey of 937 women in Information Technology fields in that 51% of
their influences to pursue technology interests were derived from parents and family (Google,
2014; Peterfreund et al., 2017).
Female students have more meaningful connections to learning when they have positive
inside and outside the classroom experiences. From childhood through adulthood obstacles arise
from gender ability stereotypes that exist in female students’ relationships with their learning
environments, peers, and family and creates a “leaky pipeline” for female retention in STEM
disciplines (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014, p. 21). The metaphor of a leaky pipeline can form during a
female student’s childhood partially caused by their awareness of gender differences through
math and science related stereotypes and their subsequent internalization of stereotypes
21

(Dasgupta & Stout, 2014, Dee & Gershenson, 2017). Dasgupta and Stout (2014) highlighted that
there are development phases from childhood through adulthood that have distinct obstacles that
can negatively influence female interest, achievement, and persistence in STEM. For each
development phase of life, the literature suggests that intervention policies and programs that
have a positive view of STEM could potentially increase female students’ perception and
participation in STEM (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Dee & Gershenson, 2017).
The fostering of female gender-based role expectations can create a mismatch, and a
potential barrier if threat is experienced for females that otherwise desire to pursue a male
stereotyped STEM course, major, or career (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014). A stereotype threat is one
that creates “an uncomfortable feeling that arises when people are at risk of confirming a
negative stereotype in the eyes of others” (Steele et al., 2002, p. 46). A gender-based stereotype
that depicts females as not as good at math and science as males is an example of a stereotype
threat that females might experience. In a U.S. based survey of a near gender balanced set of
2,015 students, results confirmed that the negative gender stereotype that females are not as
capable as males in math and science erodes female students’ confidence in their abilities to
succeed in STEM (Steele et al., 2002). Additionally, the negative stereotype can create
performance anxiety and breed feelings of inadequacy and isolation that led some to drop a
course or not engage in future STEM related activities. Potential strategies to reduce this threat
are to encourage increased engagement with successful female role models to include female
teachers (Master et al., 2014). Additionally, access to role models can create identity-safe spaces
in schools where they can learn about how other females have succeeded. (Master et al., 2014).
Removal of references to gender ability differences as well as teachers’ words of encouragement
and to “avoid sayings like ‘guys’ in a classroom setting and use her/his and he/she” can create an
22

environment where every student feels more welcome (Master et al., 2014; McCarthy & Slater,
2011, p.28).
Gender Driven Perceptions About STEM Ability
Eccles (1994) highlighted that parents provide males with more opportunities in sports
and computing and females with more opportunities to read and to interact socially with their
friends. These differences might also erode female students’ confidence in their own math
abilities and interests in STEM related activities (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Eccles, 1994).
Parents’ beliefs that STEM is for male children casts a shadow over their female children’s
interests. In a qualitative study of 77 female students ages eight through fifteen, as well as a
balance of 25 female and male adults, about female students’ perceptions of engineering, Sinkey
et al. (2014) found that engineering was understood to be masculine and not altruistic, personally
relevant, or social. While complex problem solving is an important aspect of the rigor and
advanced problem solving of STEM, a further perception that existed in the interviews and focus
groups was that females were not fit or able to succeed in engineering related study and careers
(Sinkey et al., 2014).
While a male gender stereotype reputation has been a contributor to the
underrepresentation of female students in STEM and there is a disparity of female representation,
there is now a limited difference in female and male academic achievement. Math is a key
component of STEM. In a study of ten U.S. statewide mathematics tests administered to seven
million second grade through 11th grade students, Hyde (2014) found no measurable gender
differences compared to previous decades of data that demonstrated higher math achievement for
males. While the same study did indicate that male students exceeded female students in
complex problem-solving in U.S high school and that male students have a more positive attitude
23

toward mathematics, the research reiterated that for those females that enrolled, the female to
male gender gap in math achievement no longer exists (Petersen & Hyde, 2015; Hyde 2014).
Even though STEM has been a male gendered stereotyped field, the increasing acceptance of
female students that do take STEM related courses suggests that they are much more comfortable
than in the past in pursuing STEM disciplines (Leaper et al., 2011). Further, this issue of female
student representation is not academic performance, it is one of continued disparity in STEM
course enrollment. While female students in STEM have comparable academic achievement, the
gender-based stereotype drives a bias and can contribute further to female students not choosing
STEM in U.S. K–12 secondary education.
Bias Can Be a Powerful Influence to Pursue STEM or Not
Unconscious bias that STEM is best suited for male students by secondary teachers,
counselors, fellow students, and school principals affect the school climate for female students
(Nosek & Smyth, 2011). Even if unintentional, evidence exists that these influencers can treat
female and male students differently (Sue, 2017). In a large study of 5,139 adults utilizing an
Implicit Association Test (IAT) to assess mental processes that respondents may be unwilling or
unable to report, Nosek and Smyth (2011) found evidence of implicit social cognition that
resulted in STEM being male gender typed. Additionally, unconscious bias, manifested in
behaviors toward female students, can influence and undermine their sense of belonging,
interest, and achievement in STEM activities.
Teacher Influence
In school, teachers have significant influence on students’ beliefs, motivation, and
behaviors. In a Gallup (2016) survey of 1,672 seventh to 12th grade students, it was determined
that female students are less likely to have had a teacher share that they have competence for
24

computer science with 26% responding, compared to 39% of males. Wang (2012) highlighted
that teacher expectations of students and their support, as well as relating the materials to
meaning that matters to students, are also indicators of a student’s math expectancies. For math,
teachers influence student attainment through their application of the mathematics curriculum
that not only addresses the essential knowledge and skills yet goes further in developing specific
skills and interests they create in the classroom (Wang, 2012). Further, these skills and interest
are enhanced by teachers support through the confidence building enabled by structure, and
classroom learning activities.
Teacher bias can be influenced by belief that STEM is for females. Cornwell et al. (2013)
points out that the male to female gender gap in education begins in the early education years,
and that teachers' grades strongly influence students’ grade-level placement and continues
through high school. While assessing academic achievement is a key role for teachers, teachers
consciously reward students that display motivation for learning, yet can also unconsciously
penalize students through their gender bias (Cornwell et al., 2013). In a U.S. based study, high
school teachers assigned higher grades to students’ exams who listed their male names versus
results of exams where students’ names were removed confirming a male preference to female
grading differentials (Cornwell et al., 2013). Even teachers’ different uses of discipline for
conduct issues for different students, like not turning in homework, being tardy or disruption in
class, as well as their verbal and nonverbal affirmations can validate or invalidate a student’s
thoughts, and feelings toward academic interests (Dee, 2005, Dee & Gershenson, 2017; Sue,
2010). In contrast, when teachers believe that STEM is for females, they are facilitators of
knowledge sharing (Margot & Kettler, 2019). Further, when teachers believe that STEM leads to
higher expectations for students after high school, they encourage students to take risks to do
25

things they do not know how to do, and not be frustrated when confronting a STEM
experiment’s failure. Positive interactions between students and teachers are important to STEM
enrollment. In a survey of 91 teachers, counselors and school administrators, a teacher with a
positive attitude toward STEM was the single most important factor identified for STEM
programs and student’s success (McMullin & Reeve, 2014).
While teachers play a role in students’ development of attitudes toward the STEM
discipline, a lack of quality career guidance during middle and high school can contribute to the
underrepresentation of students in STEM courses. In a qualitative study of 11 undergraduate
biology students focused on their high school and college science journey, Russell and Atwater
(2005) found that teachers had the largest impact on student’s pursuit in science and math
courses. The lack of quality career guidance stems from a lack of teacher knowledge and skills to
effectively teach and encourage students to persist in STEM (Russell & Atwater, 2005). When a
student understands STEM career possibilities, they can make informed decisions about their
college and career choices (Google, 2014). A report from Google based on a survey of 1000
women and 600 men found that formal and informal exposure to STEM for female students in
high school is an important indicator of future STEM interest in college and/or career pursuits
(Google, 2014). While research indicates that teachers influence through explicit or implicit bias
can impact student’s beliefs about STEM, so does systematic bias.
Systematic Bias
Moss-Racusin et al. (2018) found that unconscious bias experienced by female students
leads to systematic bias. The systematic bias coupled with a lack of gender parity in STEM
courses can create gender gaps. In two different experiments, with sample sizes of 322 and 429
U.S. women, researchers confirmed that the existence of male gender bias caused lower
26

participation in STEM (Moss-Racusin et al., 2018). Further, when females do not have equal
representation in STEM, they experience feelings of discomfort, distrust, and a lack of a sense of
belonging that may deter STEM choice. Separately, in two large scale U.S. studies of
questionnaires of 3,055 seventh and eighth graders paired with their teacher’s responses, Dee
highlighted that the experiences of a classroom environment can signal an unconscious gender
bias through the presence of higher male gender ratio of students in a class can contribute to the
underrepresentation of females in STEM (Dee, 2005; Dee & Gershenson, 2017). Female student
experiences included unbalanced classroom gender ratios and stereotypical prompts about their
STEM aptitude and ability that negatively influenced academic performance (Dee, 2005). The
findings further indicated that females not only do not select STEM when there is a lack of
gender parity, but also when systematic bias exists.
Systematic bias can erode a female’s experiences and desire to remain in STEM
disciplines. Professional development education for teachers to better understand the stereotypes
and subsequent bias, expressing needs for greater empathy for students experiences and
highlighting student’s potential were expressed to be important to better outcomes (Dee, 2014).
Cognizance of better gender balance, student teacher pairings as well as purposeful placement of
teachers with degrees and experience in the topic are important for overcoming systematic bias
(Dee, 2005, 2014). When Moss-Racusin et al. (2018) and her fellow researchers eliminated
gender bias through gender bias training and highlighted examples where there was action taken
to address bias, they obtained gender parity in the experiments and reported that females had
greater sense of belonging, positive attitudes, and greater potential interest in STEM. While the
presence of at least equal gender ratios and teacher’s encouragement removes barriers to
27

motivation for STEM, female student STEM motivation and sense of belonging can be affected
by classmates and friend’s support.
Peer Influences
Peers’ positive or negative influence is an important element in forming a student’s sense
of belonging and important to understand as it forms female students’ perception about their
potential experiences in STEM. Specifically, interactions with peers and the interpersonal
relationships that form have significant impact on motivation and interest that feeds a student’s
sense of belonging or not for STEM course pursuits (Johnson, 2012). In a study of 1,722 racially
diverse college females that focused on obtaining a sense of their experiences in STEM,
researchers found that peers through the formative education years of secondary school are often
viewed as the most critical factor in determining an overall sense of belonging and interest in
participation in a STEM educational environment. (Johnson, 2012).
Peer influence forms much earlier than their college education experience. While college
students may be more effective in articulating their experiences, it is during adolescence that
conformity to peer norms tends to increase (Leaper et al., 2011). In a U.S. focused quantitative
study of 579 female adolescent students ages 13 through 18 that investigated predictors of female
students’ academic motivation in STEM and English courses found that social factors influence
adolescent females’ motivation in STEM (Leaper, et al. 2011). In this same study, if a female
student’s friends like science and math and emphasize accomplishment as important, a female
student may develop a strong motivation in STEM. In contrast, peers that dislike STEM will
have an adverse effect upon motivation (Leaper et al., 2011).
Students look to their friends for social comparison and approval as evidenced by the
findings of a quantitative study of 468 California high school students comprised of 264 female
28

students from five high schools. This study found strong linkage between a student’s personal
motivation and a student’s friendship in a social group that they value (Robnett & Leaper, 2012).
The study also indicated that friendship group norms that are compatible with the individual’s
own values have a strong impact on their STEM choice especially when the student has a strong
link to the group. Social identity with a group can be a source of self-esteem for STEM
(Sabharwal, 2014). In a separate study, Tajfel (1982) validates that STEM interests can be driven
from personal motivation derived from friendship groups. Tajfel and his fellow social
psychologist Turner are attributed with the social identity theory that found when a student had a
group of friends with whom they regularly spent time there was a relationship between students’
STEM interests driven by factors such as personal motivation derived from the friendship group
(Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Further, based upon their social identity, female students may make
their choice to pursue STEM or not based upon their perceptions of being included or excluded
in a particular group.
While female students derive their identity from a friendship group, they also can
experience a threat from their social identity. Social identity threat exists when a person believes
that their social identity is lowered as they feel that they do not fit into a setting because of their
gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, socio-economic class, age group
and ability identity membership (Sabharwal, 2014; Tajfel, 1982). Murphy et al. (2007) concluded
that females experience social identity threat based upon the situation of observing more male
students than female students participating in STEM. In a study of 47 university undergraduates,
comprising 22 female and 25 male students, to determine cues of potential social identity threat,
researchers measured each participant’s heart rate, temperature, and emotional reaction signals to
watching videos with different ratios of female and male participants (Murphy et al., 2007).
29

Findings indicated that females had larger reaction to watching gender unbalanced videos than
the gender balanced videos (Murphy et al., 2007). As a result, females expressed a lower sense of
belonging and interest in participation in the topic of the video than if there was a balance of
gender represented.
While negative male student peer influence may manifest in STEM female gender gaps,
the literature also highlighted that positive female student peers influence act as well as a
countermeasure. In a U.S. longitudinal survey of 2,573 seventh through 12th grade students
across 132 schools representing a census of over 90,000 students, Riegle-Crumb et al. (2006)
indicated that when there were a high percentage of confident female peers’ participating in
STEM education that there was an increase in female students plans to pursue male-dominated
STEM interests. In the same study, they also noted that female student friends influence other
female students to enroll in advanced courses in junior high school and high school. In four
surveys of a 11,023-student cohort of U.S. seventh through 12th grade over multiple academic
years, researchers explored potential connections of gender and friendship to STEM academic
success in secondary school (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2006). Results indicated that female friends’
success in STEM classes in previous years was a contributing factor to their decision to pursue
STEM curriculum. While female students also choose friends to some extent based on their
friend’s academic success and attitudes about school, findings of their research indicated that
female friends promote other females’ STEM course selection (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2006).
In interviews of 133 female and 68 college STEM and non-STEM majors, researchers
found that STEM students’ sense of belonging was connected to the number of students’ gender
who also were in their STEM course of study (Rainey et al., 2018). The Rainey et al. (2018)
finding was also representative of these students experiences from middle school through high
30

school as well. Similarly, Dasgupta and Stout (2014) also highlighted that female students have a
higher participation level when there is a sense of equality in an educational environment driven
in part by female gender parity or better. In a study of U.S. 1,273 high school students,
comprised of 647 females, that utilized their 8th grade administrative and survey data found that
a negative effect existed in the classroom for female students when a high percentage of male
students existed and who endorsed gender stereotypes (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2006). While female
students’ sense of belonging and motivation for STEM is positively and negatively influenced by
their classmates and friends support, role models can also influence STEM choices.
Role Models Influence
Many female students cannot visualize themselves in STEM roles because of a lack of
female role models. While 53% in a Modi et al. (2012) study know a woman, whose career is in
a STEM field, only 22% in a different survey of 2,176 students could name a famous female
working in technology while 66% could name a famous male (PWC, 2017). According to the
Modi et al. (2012) study, 90% of young females want to help people and yet a conflict for
women exists as Diekman and Steinberg (2013) highlighted through a large survey sample that
female students and young women perceive technology roles to lack collaboration or a direct
benefit to others.
A large part of some female students and young women’s inability to visualize being a
woman in technology is lack of access to role models. Riegle-Crumb et al. (2006) findings
indicated that while historically STEM courses have been stereotyped as male student domains,
female friends and role models who are successful in STEM stand in contrast to perceptions that
STEM is not for females. Female friends who are successful in STEM also serve as in-school
role models promoting academic success (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2006). Female students personal
31

contact with professional women in STEM careers has a positive effect on their self-perceptions
of STEM (Stout et al., 2011). In a review of three different studies that encompassed 264
undergraduate students enrolled in math, science, and engineering classes at a large university,
Stout et al. (2011) found that while the gender difference in STEM courses and in the profession
is decreasing, increasing the visibility of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians is important to
improving females’ perceptions of STEM. Female students’ beliefs and attitudes about STEM
can be developed through their interaction with role models and through exposure to media.
Media Influence
While STEM persistence is influenced by access to role models, a student’s observational
learning transmitted through television, film, magazines, and social media also can be a social
influence that deters females from STEM (Diekman et al., 2016). In a survey of a balanced set of
304 U.S. female and male seventh graders, after participating in a set of visits by female
scientists intending to be scientist role models, Steinke (2017) found that gender stereotyped
images of male scientists resulted. In this project, students were also asked to draw a picture of a
scientist. While 50% of female students drew a female scientist, only 13% of the male students
drew a female scientist (Steinke et al., 2007). Researchers concluded that a variety of forms of
social media are influencers. These students indicated that their primary source of drawing ideas
was formed through television programs and movies and not the scientist’s visits (Steinke, 2017;
Steinke et al., 2007).
Female students’ impressions of scientists are obtained from popular culture depiction by
“characters and images in books, movies, television programs, magazines, comics, video games,
clip art, Web sites, and a variety of other media sources” (Deikman et al., 2017) and is counter to
desire for communal opportunities to work with or help others. While the media’s depiction of
32

STEM careers is primarily that of being male gender typed, a learning environment’s physical
attributes can also affect female student’s sense of belonging. While STEM persistence is
influenced by social media, their physical environment can also be a contributor to females’
disinterest in STEM.
Influence of Physical Environment on Interest
Female students’ physical educational environment influences their interest to pursue
STEM’s computer science. In four different studies of 262 undergraduate students across three
universities, Cheryan et al. (2009) altered a masculine oriented computer science environment
and determined that the presence of stereotypical computer science undermined female students’
sense of belonging. The environment was tested with objects that included stereotypical items of
science fiction posters, soda and junk food and technical magazines versus an alternative setting
of posters of nature, health food, and mainstream journals. The masculine environment alienated
females (Cheryan et al., 2009). The environment that emanated strong masculine culture
undermined female students’ sense of belonging while an altered environment that removed
masculine objects created a more comfortable environment and one in which female students
indicated interest in computer science (Cheryan et al., 2009).
In a different study that built upon previous research, Cheryan et al. (2013) highlighted
that posters and other displays in the classroom and in school hallways associated with male
stereotypes accentuated that STEM is for males. In a quantitative study of 100 female non
computer science undergraduates’ majors, signage affected students’ expectations of STEM,
sense of belonging and affected their effort, and attitudes, in ways that also reinforce such
dynamics that STEM is for males (Cheryan et al., 2013). Media’s depiction of STEM careers as
male gender oriented along with a masculine oriented education environment are factors in a
33

decreasing a female’s sense of belonging and eventually could affect their choice for STEM and
lead to their eventual underrepresentation in college degrees and in the workplace.
Bandura (1997) highlighted that students can develop self-efficacy beliefs because of
social persuasions and that persuaders like parents and teachers must be credible to develop a
belief that one can be successful or not. In the case of STEM, self-efficacy is the expectation that
a student has about their capabilities to perform tasks at a certain level (Bandura, 2012). A
learner’s ability to achieve their goals depends greatly on their self-efficacy beliefs and centers
on a person’s judgment of their own ability to complete a task (Bandura, 1997; Borgogni et al.,
2011). Self-efficacy has an influence on a learner’s motivation exemplified in how much time
they spend on a learning activity, how they address challenges, and their resilience in the face of
adversity and achievement (Elliot, et al., 2018). Further, a learner’s motivation develops through
a self-regulatory cycle that is personal and grows based upon feedback loops through phases of
forethought, performance, and self-reflection. Strategies to recognize persuader’s stereotypes and
subsequent bias that positive or negative feedback can affect a learner’s satisfaction, motivation
and ultimately their commitment for continued learning is important to improving students
STEM interest (Schunk & Dibenedetto, 2020).
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Influence Drives Interest
Many female students and young women’s lack of interest in technology can be driven by
disconnects in curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In a study sampling student’s perceptions
of classroom quality, 7,411 students with 50% female in grades 7-12 across seven U.S. states,
concluded that connecting to course content, instructional methods in the classroom to students’
meaningful and relevant interests subsequently increased student achievement (Gentry & Owen,
2004). While STEM curriculum and instruction are important factors in student achievement and
34

persistence, deeper learning occurs when there is active student involvement. In a survey of 937
women in information technology asking their view of what technology learning elements for
female student and young women were most important, 40.3% identified relevant curriculum and
50.6% believed that curriculum including project-based learning opportunities were most vital
(NCWIT, 2008).
High school students' academic success beliefs, motivation, and behaviors stem from
their junior high educational experiences and can have long-term impact on future course
selection and achievements (Wang, 2012). Further, students' that believe in the importance of
math, and experience enjoyment supported by teacher and parent engagement, are strong
predictors of future math course enrollment. In quantitative study of a cohort of 3,048 students
tracked from sixth grade through 2 years past high school, researchers found that creating
optimal math classroom environments in earlier grades is important to a student’s motivation,
math interests and subsequent math course choices in high school. Additionally, Wang (2012) in
a Michigan based longitudinal study of a base cohort of 3,048 of students (54% females),
investigated the impact of math classroom environment on students' academic success beliefs,
motivation, and behaviors. The project included questionnaires of students and parents along
with their math grades and found that students' classroom experiences predicted their
expectancies and were an indicator of the number of high school math courses taken and
eventual signaling of their career interests in math. Specifically, the study highlighted that
influences in seventh grade are a future indicator of positive motivational beliefs about math in
high school (Wang, 2012).
35

Student Connection Can Spark Interest
Strategies to improve girl’s interest in STEM in K–12 education can benefit from an
understanding of interest theory. Roggan and Schmidt (2011) highlighted that a student’s interest
is triggered by something that causes them to reflect upon something unexpected from a real-
world observation, from course readings, identification with a theme and even something that
can be puzzling or drawn from a challenging task. Classroom teachers can create a sense of
emotional connection to a class topic through their own display of positive mood or emotions
and promote enjoyment of achievement activities by influencing student’s engagement and
interest (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011). Interest refers both to the psychological state of
learners during their engagement with a particular topic and to their motivation to continue to
reengage that content over time (Renninger & Hidi, 2016; Renninger & Su, 2019). Renninger
and Hidi (2016) highlighted through interest theory or interest development theory that interest is
the result of the interaction between a learner and the subject content.
For female students’, meaningful content from the learning situation can spark interest
and their perception of a learning tasks value can result in motivation. Meaningful content for
female students involves collaboration, cultivating knowledge, and altruistic activities related to
STEM as well as service for the well-being of others (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Sinkey et al.,
2014). This student expectancy contains a self-efficacy or expectancy component and a cognitive
belief or value component, and both are strong predictors of student’s achievement performance
(Eccles-Parsons et al., 1983; Wang & Degol, 2013; Wigfield, 1994). The situational interest
created by the learning can lead to external exhibited motivation or one’s individual interest
(Hidi & Renniger, 2006). Further, indications of individual interest exist when the learner
reengages the topic over time and even occurs without external support. An individual’s interest
36

emerges out of situational interest that been defined “as an immediate affective response to
certain conditions and/or stimuli in the learning environment that focuses one's attention on the
task, which may or may not last over time” (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011, p. 58). With the premise
that situational interest comes first, individual interest can be sparked by problems or situation-
based activities of a teacher, through student collaboration or other learning experiences to the
point that a learner develops a deeper interest (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2017). Hidi and Renniger
(2006) highlighted that triggering situational interest can lead to the development of intrinsic
motivation or motivation to engage in activities for their own sake. Further, a student’s
motivation for learning guides their thoughts, feelings, and behavior in STEM and guides their
future goals and activities to learn (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Strategies to gain deeper insights
into how STEM topic situational and individual interest develops and connecting that interest to
academic achievement may help students achieve more favorable learning outcomes (Rotgans &
Schmidt, 2011).
Problem Based Learning Can Develop Interest
While Renninger and Hidi (2016) argue that interests can move from being situational
and short-term to being personal and long-term, problem-based learning can begin building the
right scaffolds to keep the interest personal and longer lasting. Instructional models whose
central element is solving an authentic problem can build student interest (Jonassen & Hung,
2008). Problem-based learning for students promotes the concept that students self-direct their
learning experiences through active investigation of real-word situations and they can problem
solve independently but more often do so in collaborative groups (Estrada et al., 2018). Norman
and Schmidt (2016) highlighted that students show more interest and are more self-motivated as
they develop a deeper knowledge of STEM topics and develop problem solving and self-directed
37

learning skills. The problem-based method indicates to a learner that there is an unknown or the
learner lacks some critical knowledge to solve a problem (Elliot et al., 2018). Further, problem-
based learning methods are based on the principle of using real-world problems as starting points
for the acquisition and integration of new knowledge. Estrada et al (2018) also establish that
learning outcomes to real world problems are an essential first step for teachers developing
curriculum for problem-based instruction. Curriculum development should have strong student
participation aspects that includes different and defined student or learner roles. Students should
be encouraged to analyze problems through the process of initiating and developing appropriate
investigations (Tiwari et al., 2016). Further, teaching tips for teachers should include connecting
students to what they already know about the problem, propose activities and assessments that
can further motivate students for more active learning about the problem and finally presenting
solutions and recommendations to solve the problem (Estrada et al., 2018).
As noted, problem-based learning occurs when an interest was sparked by a learner due
an unknown or the learner may lack some critical knowledge to solve a problem (Elliot et al.,
2018). To cultivate interest in STEM, Elliot et al. (2018) highlighted that connecting students to
content in a stimulating or motivating learning environment can make connections to students
even when the subject matter is not related to their interests. For the practitioner seeking real
applications of problem based learning examples and turning curiosity into confidence, one can
turn to an example in the Project Lead the Way (PLTW) implementation in various K–12
education settings, where students are performing at higher levels in STEM themed courses (Pike
& Robbins, 2019; Van Overschelde, 2013). PLTW is a hands-on engineering curriculum for
middle and high school students that engages students in continuous, rigorous mathematics and
science curricula with applied technology courses based on real-world, hands-on projects
38

(Bottoms & Anthony, 2005). PLTW is designed “to promote critical thinking, creativity,
innovation, and real-world problem solving” while students apply their math and science courses
knowledge and skills (Van Overschelde, 2013). PLTW’s design of problem-based thinking
mindset empowering both female and male students and exhibiting their interest in math and
science topics that otherwise would not foster collaborative problem solving and developing
communications skills (Pike & Robbins, 2019). Further, the authors infer that PLTW
participation sparks interest which increases the likelihood of female students’ engagement in
STEM and can carry past high school with majors and careers in STEM.
Personal Goals Influence Interest
Personal factors pointing to STEM persistence include female students’ past achievement
in STEM and how well STEM fits with their personal goals and values. While exposure to
STEM and previous academic achievement in STEM is a key influential personal factor, so too
are a female student’s preference for community. Female students have a more meaningful
connection to learning when their personal goals and values align with STEM education
(Dasgupta & Stout, 2014). Unlike male students, female students often have a desire to share,
make friends, help others, seek approval from others and steer away from activities that are not
inclusive (Dasgupta & Stout, 2004; Diekman et al., 2010; Konrad et al., 2000; Sinkey et al.,
2014). In a quantitative study comparing female and male job attribute preferences collected
from near gender balanced sets of 1,470 elementary, 21,753 junior high and high school students
and 526,411 high school seniors in the U.S., females more than males valued roles that had sense
of community and belonging (Diekman et al., 2010; Konrad et al., 2000).
Female students believe that STEM and associated careers impede communal goals, and
these beliefs can negatively impact their interest in STEM. In a study of 333 U.S. undergraduate
39

students, comprised of 193 female students, rating their preferences for goal endorsement, career
interest, and self-efficacy for STEM careers concluded that females and males have preferences
based upon their communal goals (Diekman et al., 2010). The study specifically measured
gender preference for goals and highlighted that males are more closely aligned to agentic goals
of competence and strength and females to communal goals of personal warmth and affectionate
feelings toward others (Wojciszke et al., 2011). Agentic goals are action oriented and more
aligned with male’s goal achievement, such as a self-focus on competence, pursuit of new
experiences, and power, which were more correlated with being lawyers, architects, dentists,
physician, and chief executive officers (Abele & Wojciszke, 2014; Diekman et al., 2010).
Communal goals are directed at others and more related to females (Abele & Wojciszke,
2014, Diekman et al., 2010; Wojciszke et al., 2011). Further, communal goals involve personal
relationships developed by connecting with people, helping others, and serving community. The
literature highlighted that communal goal endorsement aligned best with being elementary
school teachers, human resources managers, social workers, nurses, and education administrators
(Diekman et al., 2010). Further, the study shared an irony in that STEM oriented careers involve
elements of helping and caring about others yet are perceived by female students as not
compatible or a match to communal goals. As result of females endorsing communal goals, they
are less likely to select STEM careers in favor of non-STEM careers that match their communal
goals (Diekman et al., 2010).
While the literature indicates a gender-based bias in that engineering related topics are for
males and are not interesting to females, STEM selection is dependent on a female student’s
personal goals and values. In a qualitative study of 77 female students ages 8 through 15 as well
as 25 adults about female students’ perceptions of engineering, Sinkey et al. (2014) found that
40

engineering was understood to be a masculine, not altruistic, nor personally relevant or social.
Female students perceive STEM to be cold, individualistic, competitive and possesses a lack of
concern for the happiness of others (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2006; Sinkey et al., 2014). While
female students have demonstrated STEM skills and interests, Williams and Ceci (2012)
suggests that female students career endorsements are more closely aligned to being
veterinarians and biologists and through this self-selection are reported to be underrepresented as
engineers and computer scientists. While STEM selection is dependent on female students’
personal goals and values, so too is their past academic performance.
Past Performance Can Be a Predictor of STEM Choice or Not
Previous academic success is an important personal factor that influences a female
student’s motivation in STEM (Leaper et al., 2011). Specifically, female student’s STEM
motivation is positively associated with their past STEM grades achievement. In the same U.S.
focused quantitative study of 579 secondary female students that investigated predictors of
female students’ academic motivation in STEM courses, Leaper et al. (2011) found that their
previous attainment in math and science influences their motivation in STEM.
Female students’ past performance coupled with social encouragement are indicators
whether they will pursue higher level math courses in high school. In a study focused upon
indications of 540 ninth graders, comprised of 277 female students, Crombie et al. (2005) found
that math competence beliefs were a significant indicator of intentions to enroll in high school
math courses. The study demonstrated similarities in that both female and male students found
the future usefulness of math to be important. Differences were that male students correlated
their past math grade performance and encouragement from teachers and parents as a predictor
41

of their high school math enrollment intentions while females were more influenced by their self-
perceptions of their math competence (Crombie et al., 2005).
Secondary students’ persistence in STEM can be assessed through their course-taking
patterns driven by academic achievement results (Russell & Atwater, 2005). In a qualitative
study of 11 students that focused on their high school and college science experiences,
participants experimented by taking algebra, geometry, biology, and chemistry courses to test
their interest in continuing to take higher level math and science courses beyond the typical core
requirements (Russell & Atwater, 2005). The research indicated that students who experienced
success in math and science increased their interest and confidence for future STEM pursuits
(Russell & Atwater, 2005).
Parents and school boards highly value computer science education while school
administrators surveyed do not see the demand from students. Two surveys of 1,685 parents and
11,558 school administrators’ results indicate that 90% of parents believe computer science
education is important while school administrators indicate that student demand for courses is
approximately 7% and many times do not meet the minimum required to offer the courses
(Gallup, 2015). While it is worth highlighting that students, who have a four-year course plan
that includes computer science classes along with elective STEM classes are more likely to
pursue STEM after high school (Google, 2014), female students are not pursuing computing.
College Board Advanced Placement tests also indicate that high school females are not pursuing
computing. According to the AP © Program Participation and Performance Data (2019), 56% of
all Advanced Placement (AP) test-takers were female (Table 1) while only 25% of the secondary
students took the STEM-related AP Computer Science A exam (Table 2). Additionally, high
school females take fewer AP tests than males in the STEM-related subjects of calculus, physics,
42

and chemistry and females who take STEM AP exams earn lower scores than males (Hill et al.,
2010).

Table 1: Percent of U.S. Female and Male AP Exam Takers in 2019
Percent of U.S. Female and Male AP Exam Takers in 2019 (N = 2.56M)
Female Male
All AP subjects 56 44

Note: From AP Program Participation and Performance Data 2019 by College Board

43

Table 2: Percent of U.S. Female and Male STEM AP Exam Takers in 2019
Percent of U.S. Female and Male STEM AP Exam Takers in 2019 (N = 1.48M)
Female Male
All AP STEM subjects 48 52
Biology 63 37
Chemistry 52 48
Environmental science 58 42
Physics 1 39 61
Physics 2 27 73
Physics C: EM* 24 76
Physics C: mechanics 28 72
Calculus AB 50 50
Calculus BC 42 58
Computer science A 25 75
Computer science principles 34 66
Statistics 53 47

Note: The data is from College Board AP Program Participation and Performance Data 2019
* EM = Electricity and Magnetism

According to the same U.S. AP © Program Participation and Performance Data (2019),
White females were 50% of the AP exam course takers while Hispanic females were 25%.
Further, Asian females were 13%, Black females were 7% while those female students whose
ethnicity represented two or more races was 5% (Table 3). A deeper dive into the U.S. female
STEM AP exam takers indicated that White females has the highest representation of ethnicity
44

except for Computer Science A where Asian females had larger percentage representation at
40% compared to White females of 34% (Table 3). Consistent with the percentage of U.S.
female AP exam takers, Asian, Hispanic, Black and those of two or more races ethnicity were
represented less than White females. White females were 49% of all STEM AP Exam Takers
while Asian, Hispanic, Black and those of two or more races were 21%, 17%, 5% and 8%
respectively (Table 4).
In the same Google (2014) study of 1,600 students, survey results highlighted that most
of the decision-making to pursue computer science occurs before a young woman begins college
(Google, 2014). Further, females receive higher percentages of university bachelor’s degrees but
lower percentages of bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields. According to U.S. Department of
Education, 42% of bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females and just 36% in STEM fields
(NCES, 2016). While there may be a disagreement on the interest in computer science courses,
the path highlighted in this literature is highly dependent on encouragement and self-efficacy. A
quantitative and qualitative study of 852 teenage females indicates that 74% are interested in
STEM topics, while only 13% select STEM as their first career choice due to lack of interest
(Modi et. al., 2012).

45

Table 3: Percent of U.S. Female AP Exam Takers, by Race or Ethnicity in 2019
Percent of U.S. Female AP Exam Takers, by Race or Ethnicity in 2019 (N = 708k)
White Asian Hispanic Black Other and two or more
races
All AP subjects 50 13 25 7 5

Note: The data is from College Board AP Program Participation and Performance Data 2019

Table 4: Percent of U.S. Female STEM AP Exam Takers, by Race or Ethnicity in 2019
Percent of U.S. Female STEM AP Exam Takers, by Race or Ethnicity in 2019 (N = 708k)
White Asian Hispanic Black Other and
two or more
races
All AP STEM Subjects 49 21 17 5 8
Biology 50 18 18 6 8
Chemistry 48 24 14 5 8
Environmental Science 52 13 21 6 8
Physics 1 45 22 19 5 9
Physics 2 48 29 11 3 8
Physics C: E & M 41 40 7 3 9
Physics C: mechanics 46 33 9 3 9
Calculus AB 51 19 17 5 7
Calculus BC 46 33 10 3 8
Computer Science A 34 40 11 4 10
Computer science principles 38 24 20 9 9
Statistics 53 19 16 5 7

Note: The data is from College Board AP Program Participation and Performance Data 2019

46

The literature provided an opportunity to better understand the interaction of female
students, their environment, and their resulting choices for STEM. Female students’ exposure to
culture-based gender roles and expectations can result in experiences of social bias from parents,
teachers, and peers. This conscious or unconscious bias from influencers or persuaders can lead
to a lack of sense of belonging in STEM. While there are positive examples of influence and
success in STEM, the lack of a feeling of fit is amplified by whether there is interest sparked for
STEM through their engagement and academic achievement problem-based outcomes.
Confidence is important throughout secondary education for influencing decisions of why female
students choose STEM and why some did not. Some female students do not select STEM
because they cannot see themselves in STEM based upon perceptions conveyed by influencers, a
lack of role models as well as the media and their physical environment portraying STEM as
male gender typed. The effects on female students reviewed add and interact with personal goals
and values in complex ways and leads to the underrepresentation of females pursuing STEM
education and careers.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of K–12 Female Students, Their Environment,
and Their Reciprocating Behavior
The conceptual framework that this study utilizes is Albert Bandura’s social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1986). The framework serves to highlight components of the study and how
these components interact in the study built by the researcher (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In this study, social cognitive theory provided a lens to view to student enrollment
choices through the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the female students, their environment,
and their behaviors (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Further, social cognitive theory highlighted that
47

personal self-efficacy is the key to human motivation and learning and will help view females’
interactions in their environment and reacting to behaviors.
Self-efficacy is about a female student’s confidence in her ability to act and to persist in that
activity despite obstacles or challenges (Bandura, 1997). Further, Bandura highlighted how
students can develop self-efficacy beliefs because of social persuasions and that persuaders like
parents and teachers must be credible to develop a belief that one can be successful or not in
STEM topics. Additionally, this confidence seems to be important throughout their secondary
education for influencing decisions of why they choose STEM courses and why some did not.
According to Bandura (1986) reciprocal determinism, behavior and environment are constantly
interacting and influencing one another. In this study, reciprocal determinism means that a
female student can act as both an agent for change and a responder to change. An aspect of social
cognitive theory is that humans “learn not only through their own experiences, but also by
observing the actions of others and the results of those actions” (Glanz, 2001, p.85). Thus,
changes in the environment, the examples of different role models, and social bias
reinforcements are determinants of course selection behavior. Social cognitive theory is
appropriate to examine the problem of practice because it allows for an examination of the
interactions of female students and their social influences behaviors along with their home and
school environments.
Figure 1 represents Bandura’s social cognitive theory in diagram form as a visual guide,
along the student’s journey, to how the balance of personal, environmental, and behavioral
factors relates to one another and affect the individual’s level of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

48

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of K–12 Secondary Female Students, Environment, and
their Reciprocating Behavior

In Figure 1, the purple box represents the female student’s outcome and self-efficacy
expectations as well as goal orientation while the light blue box represents the environment that
female students interact where social reinforcements and observational learning occurs. Finally,
the dark blue box represents the behaviors from any self-observation, judgement, or reaction of
female students in a secondary environment. What one can see between these three parts are bi-
directional arrows representing the fact that there are interactions between these concepts. In the
framework, the three concepts work in tandem with one another. The interaction between the
person and the environment involves beliefs and self-efficacy influenced by social interactions.
49

Further, the interaction between the environment and female students’ behavior involves the
female students’ behavior determining their environment, which reciprocally, affects their
behavior. Finally, the interaction between the person and the environment involves beliefs and
self-efficacy influenced by social interactions.
In this study, the researcher desires to understand the perceptions of counselor and
teachers on why female students in SSISD choose STEM courses throughout their secondary
education and why some did not. The framework will be a guide through to better understand
why female students are underrepresented in STEM in SSISD. Through the perceptions of
counselors and teachers identifying the experiences, the environment as well as behavioral
factors that impact STEM course selection or not will potentially provide information with which
to increase enrollment. The framework will assist with a lens to assess how the interactions of
counselors and teachers with SSISD female students reported or observed experiences of social
bias, stereotypes, and whether curriculum and instruction has an impact of decision to take
STEM courses or not. Further, the framework will be able to assess support from family,
teachers, counselors, and community role models. To better understand female student’s
secondary education behaviors, the framework can assist in understanding the transition to
secondary schools, goal motivation as well as interest and perceptions of STEM.
Summary
The literature highlighted that secondary female students in U.S. K–12 education
experience a lack of self-efficacy beliefs, social encouragement, and interest for STEM leading
to their underrepresentation. Research based strategies to improve female student’s interest in
STEM in K–12 secondary education is important to continue to solve for as the evidence
highlighted that female students in K–12 secondary education have a lack of self-efficacy beliefs,
50

social encouragement and interest for STEM and through problem based learning and
instruction, educators need to continue to design interventions that spark the development of
situational interests leading to individual interests and further development to shape student’s
interest in STEM and their learning outcomes.

51

Chapter Three: Methodology
The focus of this chapter describes the design of the qualitative research study, research
setting, population criteria, method of data collection, and analysis plan for the data. The purpose
of the study was to explore in what ways are the challenges and benefits of taking STEM courses
or not in middle and high school for female students described by middle and high school
counselors and STEM teachers.
Research Questions
The qualitative study was guided by the following research questions:
1. How do middle and high school counselors and STEM teachers perceive their role in
having female students enroll in STEM courses?
2. In what ways are the challenges and benefits of taking STEM courses in middle and high
school schools for female students described by middle and high school counselors and
STEM teachers?
Overview of Design
Qualitative interviews were selected to study responses to the research questions to
understand others’ perspectives. Interviews are the most effective means to gain this
understanding (Johnson & Christensen, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Morgan, 2014).
Qualitative interviewing allowed topics and primary information to emerge by my listening and
collecting in-depth details from counselors and STEM teachers’ perspectives as to why some
middle and high school female students select STEM courses, and some do not (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The interviews helped me explore and better understand the roles of counselors
and STEM teachers in acknowledging how middle and high school female students’ experiences,
52

opinions, behaviors, and any cultural phenomenon connected to my research questions (Morgan,
2014).
In this study, I was the researcher and key instrument that selected the schools and
recruited the interview subjects, as well as developed the interview protocol and conducted all
the interviews (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018). Further, I utilized Zoom’s transcription software
to transcribe the interviews, and I analyzed the data. During this study, I examined my
positionality as the researcher and its role in this study. The role of researcher positionality has
been identified in the limitations and delimitations section of this dissertation.
Research Setting
The research setting for the interviews was virtual with counselors and teachers
physically located on SSISD’s secondary school campuses while the researcher connected via
Zoom from off campus. Participants were physically located on six different campuses and each
joined the interview remotely from their campus. The pseudonyms for the six different campuses
were Texas High School, Texas Central High School, Silver Star High School, Texas Junior
High School, Dogwood Junior High School, and Riverside Junior High School.
The constraint of a virtual interview versus face-to-face interview was due to the Novel
Coronavirus (COVID-19) protocols of minimizing all in-person activity of both the University of
Southern California research guidelines as well as SSISD’s no campus visitor policy. The
interviews were conducted by the researcher via a one-to-one Zoom meeting with 11 SSISD
middle and high school counselors and three STEM teachers. Zoom’s video-telephony cloud-
based peer-to-peer software platform was utilized. The interviews occurred during SSISD’s
regular school hours and were conducted in August 2021 before the 2021-2022 school year
started.
53

The Researcher
As the researcher, I was the sole data collector and my strategy of adequate engagement
in data collection was important to make sense of the data and try to understand the phenomenon
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I made sure that I had cognizance of my location at the intersection
of being a middle-aged White male, a people manager in a technology company and being a
school board member that carries biases and assumptions regarding this research of female
students’ behaviors and choices (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Understanding that my social
identities influence my positionality, and that my inquiry methods could possibly shape my
positionality was important for me to recognize. Along this journey of my research into this
project, I was exposed to areas that I had not been able to fully see yet like all the drivers for
societal influences and biases, gaps in school curriculum, instruction, and assessment as well as
further reasons for what I now see as low numbers of female students in high school engineering
classes as well as women in technical and non-technical roles in the U.S. technology industry. As
the researcher, I remained cognizant that my identity might have influenced data collection
techniques, interpretation, and could have shaped the outcome (Saunders et al., 2019). Based
upon the genesis of this research activity where I visited two high schools and observed very low
representation of female students in engineering and robotics classrooms, I was cognizant that I
have a view that females are underrepresented in our middle and high school schools and I was
seeking data as to whether teachers and counselors may not see it the same way. I worked hard to
minimize my board member power of position as much as possible to be able to learn from the
study participants.
While I have had good intentions to use my positionality and understanding of the issues
as a school board trustee to create awareness, policy and practices addressing the removal of
54

obstacles along the journey from elementary education to middle and high school education and
into the workplace, I made sure that I was not using my position incorrectly when interviewing
employees of SSISD. Counselors and teachers were very aware that I lead SSISD policy and
vote on their employment contracts and that the superintendent (their boss) is our board’s
employee. While my findings informed me for my role as a school board member, I continued to
reinforce that I was approaching this research as a doctoral student and limited as best as possible
the role of being a school board trustee. A technique that I used to mitigate were my assurances
to each participant by me to maintain the confidentiality of our conversation and their identity
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). If I did find a concern that was expressed to me about SSISD, the
administration, their employment, or any form of negligence, I committed to not share with the
SSISD board of trustees at large yet may privately suggest professional development to address
the problem. To ensure the identity masking, I used pseudonyms for their names. Further, I
reinforced what Dr. Artineh Samkian offered in that the nature of my questions was not
evaluative and I made no judgments about counselors and STEM teachers based upon their
responses to my interview questions (USC, Unit 8, n.d.).
A technique that I utilized was memo writing during the data collection and analysis
phases and then I reflected on my interpretations that helped identify bias and assumptions. I
utilized peer review to also help me identify blind spots so that my assumptions and judgements
highlighted any bias. As I moved from data collection to analysis, I shared my analytic memos
with female peers and obtained their feedback on my interpretations of the data. I explicitly
asked them to point out alternative interpretations that I may be missing due to my positionality.
My goal was to better understand the experiences of female students in our middle and high
55

school experience so that I can share with my fellow board members as to why these students
choose to pursue STEM or not.
Data Sources
This section describes the process that I employed to collect data for my study. The
completion of qualitative interviews with middle and high school counselors and STEM related
teachers was intended to collect qualitative, open-ended data to elicit responses to understand
participants’ thoughts, beliefs, and experiences about SSISD female students’ perceptions of
STEM (Patton, 2015). This approach allowed me the opportunity to better understand why some
female students choose STEM courses throughout their middle and high school education and
why some do not from the perspective of counselors and STEM teachers.
In the next sections, the methodology of the qualitative interview procedures will be
reviewed including the sampling and recruitment that was conducted, the instruments used to
collect data, logistical procedures of capturing the data, the data analysis process, credibility, and
trustworthiness of the interviews.
Method: Interviews
A semi-structured approach was utilized to interview SSISD junior high and high school
counselors and STEM related teachers. Semi structured interviews involved person to person
interview questions aligned with the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton 2015).
Semi-structured interviews are covered in greater details in the instrumentation section of
Chapter Three. The interview questions were open-ended questions to collect in-depth
information. The questions were asked in one-on-one interviews with each of the participants.
Each interview was approximately one hour in length.
56

Participants
I utilized a purposeful sampling of counselors and teachers drawing from the
demographic of three junior high schools and three high schools as they were perceived to know
the most about the topic in SSISD (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The selection of the sample was
based off a collaboration with the SSISD assistant superintendent of student support. The initial
sizing of the sample that was based upon collaboration with SSISD was 18 Counselors including
two college, career, and military counselors (CCMR) and four STEM teachers. The purposeful
selection of female and male counselors and teachers helped the research with insights on their
view of how SSISD middle and high school female students share information about their choice
of whether to take STEM courses (Patton, 2015). Further, through this purposeful sampling, I
teachers and counselors were appropriate and helped me better understand their view of the
reciprocal interaction of the U.S. middle and high school female students, their environment, and
behaviors in SSISD.
My recruitment strategy started with a formal request for permission to conduct the
interviews to SSISD’s superintendent of schools. After a one-to-one meeting to discuss the
research project, she referred me to the SSISD assistant superintendent of accountability and
governmental relations as well as SSISD’s assistant superintendent for student support. Working
with the assistant superintendent of accountability and governmental relations, I completed the
formal application and my “Request to Conduct Research In SSISD” was approved. Further, I
collaborated with SSISD’s assistant superintendent for student support, who supervises all
counselors, on the recruitment strategy of a purposeful sample of SSISD junior high and high
school counselors and teachers. Due to the University of Southern California and SSISD
COVID-19 pandemic protocols and need to limit contact and maintain social distancing, I
57

utilized the Zoom teleconferencing capability. The assistant superintendent for student support
helped with the scheduling of counselor interviews to balance of the complexity of scheduling
the interviews, the workday needs of each counselor as well as the beginning of the school year
activities.
In the SSISD employee handbook, the role of a CCMR is to coordinate, develop, and
implement a comprehensive college and career readiness program. Additionally, the CCMR
aligns the work of SSISD counselors and provides well-rounded educational opportunities by
planning, organizing, communicating, and maintaining the district’s CCMR program. The
handbook also established that priorities for well-rounded opportunities include, but are not
limited to college and career programs, post-middle and high school education and career
awareness and exploration activities. Further, a CCMR in SSISD creates a streamlined program
that provides each student, upon graduation, to obtain a successful pathway for college, career, or
the military. The qualifications for this role in SSISD require a teaching certificate, a school
counseling certificate as well as a master’s degree with at least 3 years of teaching and 2 years of
school counselor experience.
SSISD also established that the role of counselor is to work with school faculty and staff,
students, and parents to plan, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive developmental guidance
and counseling program at the school they are assigned. Additionally, the role includes counsel
of students to fully develop each student’s academic, career, personal, and social abilities and as
well as address the needs of special populations students. Further, the qualifications for a
counselor require holding a valid Texas Education Agency/State Board for Educator
Certification Counseling Certificate as well as a master’s degree in counseling. The SSISD
assistant superintendent of student support highlighted to me that special knowledge/skills
58

should include not only counseling procedures, student appraisal, and career development but
strong interpersonal skills to instruct students and manage their behavior. A counselor in SSISD
must have 3 years teaching experience before progressing into this role.
The employee handbook also highlighted that the primary role of a career and technical
education (CTE) teacher in SSISD is to develop students' academic skills through vocational
courses of study and implementing system approved curriculum. A STEM teacher is SSISD is
also called a CTE teacher yet for this study, I referred to the participants as STEM teachers
because they focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics specifically in SSISD.
Additionally, the qualifications for a CTE teacher in SSISD are to hold a bachelor’s degree from
an accredited university and valid standard health science technology certification as prescribed
by the Texas State Board of Educator Certification. CTE teachers in Texas vary in their vocation
specialty from agriculture, food and natural resources, health science, human development and
family studies, trade and industrial education, as well as technology education. STEM teachers in
SSISD hold a technology certification (TEA CTE, n.d.). Like other teachers in SSISD, the
handbook described that CTE teachers provide students with appropriate learning activities and
experiences designed to fulfill their potential for intellectual, emotional, physical, and social
growth.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol that was utilized was based upon a semi-structured approach that
involved person to person interview questions aligned with the research questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton 2015). The protocol (See Appendix B) was guided by a list of questions
that were generated from the key concepts in the literature review and linked to the conceptual
framework. Further, I was somewhat flexible with probing questions while I sought specific data
59

from the interview participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I collected qualitative, open-ended
data that elicited responses to understand participants’ thoughts, beliefs, and experiences of
female students about SSISD secondary female students’ perceptions about STEM (Patton,
2015). I used this approach to better understand from counselor and teachers as to why some
female students choose STEM courses throughout their middle and high school education and
why some do not. I selected questions utilizing four of Michael Quinn Patton’s six categories of
questions tied to the conceptual framework. The four categories of questions that were most
relevant and connected best to the conceptual framework were (a) experiences and behaviors, (b)
opinions and values, (c) knowledge, and (d) demographic information related to the participants
(Patton, 2015; Weiss, 1995). Further, I constructed an inquiry-based conversational approach and
received feedback on an interview protocol pilot from my peers as well as my EDUC 536 course
instructor (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I also developed a script that included an introduction to
myself and the interview, the purpose of the study, and I ensured an informed consent from each
interview participants (Bogdan & Biklin, 2007). In each interview, I made the request to record
the interview and offered to answer any participant questions (Patton, 2015). I asked main
questions that linked to the Chapter 2 Literature Review with some follow-on probing questions
during the interviews (Bogdan & Biklin, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All questions were
open-ended and had a questioning route related to the problem of practice of understanding
counselors and teachers’ perceptions of female students in SSISD, regarding why they choose
STEM courses throughout their middle and high school education and why some do not
(Krueger & Casey, 2009).
All questions were asked to assist me in my analysis of the dynamic and reciprocal
interaction of the U.S. middle and high school female students, their environment, and behaviors
60

in SSISD. Again, all questions were related to the conceptual framework of social cognitive
theory and the interaction of female students, and their behaviors in their environments from the
perspective of SSISD counselors and STEM teachers (Bandura, 1997). Research question 1 was
intended to draw out how middle and high school education counselors and STEM teachers
perceive their role in having female students enroll in STEM courses. Research question 2 was
developed to understand in what ways were the challenges and benefits of taking STEM courses
in middle and high school for female students described by middle and high school counselors
and STEM teachers.
Data Collection Procedures
While I had alignment and permission to conduct the research in SSISD from the SSISD
superintendent of schools and the SSISD assistant superintendent of student support, I needed to
recruit the counselors and teachers for the research study. Once I completed the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (USC IRB) and had permission to proceed with
the research, I distributed an informational email from my USC student email account to the
target population explaining the purpose of the research and goal of the interviews. Further, I
included the Information Sheet for Exempt Research (See Appendix A) as an attachment to the
email. In the email communication, I described my plans to maintain confidentiality including
the use of pseudonyms, password protected documentation, and the method of presenting results.
Consistent with the Cresswell (2018) research design approach, I communicated the expectations
of participants and my positionality as the researcher. Additionally, I asked that each participant
utilize a Google Sheet signup to schedule the one-hour interviews at a time and date that was
convenient for them. I ensured that a calendar notice sent from my USC student email account
was generated that included a link for the Zoom meeting.
61

During the interviews, I set expectations for the flow of the interview. I reinforced that I
was approaching the research as a doctoral student and limited as best as possible the role of
being a board member. I provided assurances to maintain the confidentiality of the conversations
and used pseudonyms to mask their identity (Bogdan & Biklin, 2007). I ensured that they
understand that they could stop the interview at any time without consequence and ask any
questions before we started the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I obtained permission from each participant to record the interview. Not only did I use the
Zoom recording capability, but I also utilized a backup digital recorder. As Dr. Artineh Samkian
pointed out in a USC OCL class lecture and I validated that the recording devices gave me
confidence that the conversation was being captured and enabled me to focus on listening and
facilitating an in-depth conversation with the participants (USC, Unit 8, n.d.). Recording also
allowed me the opportunity to go back to each interview and go deeper into the data and
presented the opportunity for me to code for analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During the
interview, I took notes and highlighted specific quotes for later reflection (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Based upon a Freedom of Information Act request to SSISD, I obtained information
specific to all SSISD students who were enrolled in AP courses in 2019 from SSISD assistant
superintendent for accountability and governmental relations.
Data Analysis
The data for this study included interview transcripts as well as my research and my
reflection notes. Per my intent in the design of the study, I obtained permission from each
participant to audio and video record all interviews. The recordings allowed me the opportunity
to go back and go deeper into the data and presented the opportunity for me to code for analysis
62

as I transcribed within 48 hours after the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used the Zoom
transcription software to transcribe each interview into a Microsoft Word document after the
interviews and I edited the transcription document for each interview while listening and
watching the interview playback for the first time (Bogdan & Biklin, 2007).
I took limited notes during the interviews so that I could facilitate relationship building
and this enabled deeper listening of the participants as well as helped me keep track of ideas and
topics to explore later. I used reflection memos immediately after each interview to describe
impressions and my thoughts (Maxwell, 2013). For the data analysis, the answers to the research
questions became the findings of this study that ultimately helped me develop an understanding
and made meaning of female students’ middle and high school STEM choices (Cresswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
To ensure trustworthy data collection, I conducted a careful design of the questions, and
followed an interview protocol question order (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, as part
of the interview protocol, I also established the purpose of the interview with each person and
gained their consent to audio record. I believe that trustworthiness was established because I
asked the questions in the same way for each of the 14 interviews (USC, Unit 9, n.d.).
I captured the interview recordings via Zoom. Zoom had a searchable audio transcript
capability that allowed the opportunity to replay as I captured the interview participants ideas in
their own words. The transcription of the interviews also supported the ability to label relevant
words, expressions, phrases, sentences, or nuances of the interview with codes. Coding helped
me as the researcher identify important qualitative data types and patterns when doing
comparisons and cross-checks.
63

To maximize and ensure internal validity or credibility, I utilized a strategy of participant
or member checks of my understandings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, internal validity
was important because really helped me get to the heart of how my research findings matched
the reality of female students’ choices. I utilized a triangulation strategy with multiple sources of
interview data that allowed me to compare and cross-check (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I agree
with Merriam and Tisdell (2016) that interview data collected from people with different
perspectives or from follow-up interviews with the same people assisted in matching reality.
I would add that I also had a telephone conversation with the SSISD Assistant
superintendent for accountability and governmental relations to ensure that I had the correct
understanding of the data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act request that I made
to SSISD specific to all SSISD students who were enrolled in AP courses in 2019.
Ethics
As the researcher, I understood my responsibilities with respect to involving human
participants in the research and I ensured that I created a relationship with the interview
participants that was free of ethical issues. I was respectful of each participant and the time that
they gave to this study. My approach with the participants was one of informed consent and I
ensured that they knew their participation was voluntary. I maintained the confidentiality of the
data and of their participation, gained their permission to video and audio record, as well as
stored and secured the research data.
Informed Consent
My responsibilities to each participant were that I fully complied with the University of
Southern California approach to informed consent that included three key features of: 1) I
disclosed to potential research subject’s information needed to make an informed decision, 2) I
64

facilitated the understanding of what had been disclosed and, 3) I promoted the voluntariness of
the decision about whether to participate in the research (OHRP, 2014).
Confidentiality
I maintained the participants confidentiality. I ensured that no identifiable information
was shared. I ensured that the individual interview results were not shared with others, but I also
did share that the results of the overall research maybe shared with SSISD district leadership. All
data or interview names was be coded. All identifiable data was be stored separately from
interview results along with the interview audio file recordings and written transcriptions. I made
sure that recording any part of the data-collection activities obtained a separate consent for
recording from each participant. Further, all data was stored in a password protected file.
Compensation/Incentives
I did not compensate any counselors and STEM teachers for their participation.
Participation was voluntary.
Power Dynamics
Power dynamics were important to consider in this qualitative research as I was the key
instrument of data collection as the researcher. I considered the power dynamics as it related to
my role as a school board trustee. What was very important for me was to share that I was
undertaking this research as not as school board trustee, but as a doctoral student conducting my
own research. As shared in the researcher portion of this chapter, I was cognizant that I have had
a view that females are underrepresented in our middle and high school schools and teachers and
counselors may not see it the same way. I worked hard to minimize board member power of
position as much as possible to be able to learn from the study participants.
65

At the time of the interviews in August 2021, SSISD maintained a no campus visitor
policy due to COVID-19 Pandemic and thus I pursued interviews virtually via Zoom.
IRB Process
An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a committee that applies research ethics by
reviewing the methods proposed for research to ensure that they are ethical (USC, Unit 3, n.d.).
There were four main steps that I completed before began recruitment and data collection and
they included (a) completion of my dissertation proposal, (b) defend of my dissertation proposal,
(c) application for and receipt of IRB approval. I did not involve minors in my study even though
my study was about minors.
Whose Interests Will Benefit or Might Be Harmed
The interests of my research will contribute to improving the representation of female
middle and high school students in my school district through higher participation and completed
rates in STEM education courses. I believe that benefit will be to future female middle and high
school students in my school district. I ensured that counselors and STEM teachers that may
have partial or full responsibility are not disenfranchised with any research findings that indicate
that they have some responsibility through their social bias or lack of encouragement of girls to
pursue STEM courses.
I ensured that their individual survey results were not shared with others but that the
results of the overall research maybe shared with SSISD district leadership. I ensured that no
identifiable information was shared. It was important to share that the overall results of the
research as that will inform practice and policy of the school district to better support
achievement outcomes of female students.
66

From Whose Perspectives, Are the Above Questions Answered?
As Cresswell and Creswell (2018) point out, it is important for clarity on whose voices
are valued and whose perspectives are valued when data is considered. As the researcher, I was
part of SSISD, but I was not a female student. Success to me is parity in representation of males
and females in STEM classes in my school district but I need to make sure that others are aligned
with definition of success. I validated this underlying assumption as it influenced my data
collection and research methods (Cresswell & Creswell, 2018). For this dissertation, I was the
researcher, and I determined the scope of the research and the research design that included the
design of the interview’s questions. The research results are published at the University of
Southern California as a dissertation and will be discussed with my fellow school board members
as well as the superintendent and the SSISD district leadership team.
67

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of the project was to gather information from secondary counselors and
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers about their perceptions of
secondary female students in STEM and was focused on what they describe about why some
females enroll in STEM and why some do not. The study was specifically focused to better
understand the challenges and benefits leading to the underrepresentation of female K–12
secondary students taking STEM courses in Silver Star Independent School District (SSISD) or
not. While the literature reviewed in Chapter Two highlighted social and structural
organizational issues impacting females enrolling in elective, secondary STEM classes in US
public schools, this chapter presents findings that emerged from data collection and analysis of
the data from SSISD. Counselors and STEM teachers were specifically selected for interviews
because they engage daily with students in classrooms and could offer their perspectives to gain
a better understanding of the challenges and benefits of students taking STEM courses. The data
collected from qualitative interviews sought to answer the following research questions:
1. How do secondary education counselors and STEM teachers perceive their role in having
female students enroll in STEM courses?
2. In what ways are the challenges and benefits of taking STEM courses in middle and high
school for female students described by middle and high school counselors and STEM
teachers?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this project were SSISD K–12 secondary counselors
and STEM teachers from three junior high schools and three high schools. Four STEM teachers
were invited to participate in the interviews, three accepted and the same three were interviewed.
68

Two of the STEM teachers taught computer science and the third taught engineering courses.
Concurrently, 18 counselors were invited to participate in the interviews, 12 accepted and 11
were interviewed. Two of the counselors were college, career, and military counselors. One
counselor who responded to the initial interview recruitment request declined the invitation to
become an interviewee as the interview would have been conducted a day before the school year
started and they shared that their workload was too high to be able to participate. All interviews
were conducted in August 2021 prior to the start of the SSISD 2021-2022 academic year. In
representing the participant names, pseudonyms were used to ensure confidentiality for the
individuals who participated in the study.
During the interviews, each counselor and STEM teacher shared their numbers of years
of service in K–12 education, as employees in SSISD as well as the number of years in their
current role in SSISD. The counselors in SSISD had an average of 20 years of service in K–12
education and averaged nearly 9 years of experience in their role in SSISD (Table 5).

69

Table 5: Summary of SSISD Interviewees Education Experience
Summary of SSISD Interviewees Education Experience
Pseudonym Gender Role Years in
education
Years in
role
Years in role in
SSISD
Counselor 1 Female CCMR counselor 24 18 15
Counselor 2 Female Counselor 23 17 13
Counselor 3 Female Counselor 28 25 13
Counselor 4 Female CCMR counselor 17 15 8
Counselor 5 Female Counselor 16 6 6
Counselor 6 Female Counselor 23 15 15
Counselor 7 Female Counselor 17 9 8
Counselor 8 Female Counselor 21 18 3
Counselor 9 Male Counselor 15 15 2
Counselor 10 Female Counselor 11 6 6
Counselor 11 Female Counselor 23 15 8
STEM teacher 1 Female Engineering 18 13 13
STEM teacher 2 Male Computer science 3 3 3
STEM teacher 3 Female Computer science 6 5 2

While STEM teachers had 9 years of average experience, STEM teachers in computer
science were less tenured in education and in their roles in SSISD. STEM Teacher 1 brought up
the average years of service with 18 years’ experience in education with 13 years of service in
SSISD. 86% of those interviewed were female while 14% were male (Figure 2). Further, SSISD
counselors and STEM teachers indicated that they had worked at different junior high and high
school campuses in SSISD, and this brought cross campus context to their interview responses.

70

Figure 2: Summary of SSISD Interviewees Gender
Summary of SSISD Interviewees Gender

Context
Based upon a Freedom of Information Act request to SSISD, I obtained information
specific to all SSISD students who were enrolled in AP courses in 2019. This data set matched
the AP College Board data set of AP topics shared in Table 2 and Table 4 of Chapter Two. Both
sets included the AP STEM math subjects of Calculus AB and BC, Computer Science A,
computer science principles, and statistics. Additionally, the subjects of AP STEM science
include Physics 1, Physics 2, Physics B, Physics C: Electricity and Magnetism, Physics C:
Mechanics, biology, chemistry, and environmental science. While the AP topics in the SSISD
data set match the AP College Board, a nuance was that the College Board data indicated the AP
STEM exam test takers whereas the SSISD data set included SSISD students who took the AP
courses. The SSISD data set does not include who sat for the AP STEM exams. The SSISD AP
14%
86%
Counselor and STEM Teacher Gender Mix (%)
Female Male
71

STEM exam taker list was not available at the time of the request due delays in reporting for
SSISD due to Coronavirus (COVID-19). Further, the SSISD assistant superintendent for
accountability and governmental relations indicated that due to concerns over Coronavirus
(COVID-19), students may have opted out on taking their AP STEM exam. Based upon a
telephone discussion with the SSISD assistant superintendent for accountability and
governmental relations, the SSISD dataset of students that took the AP courses was the best
proxy to gain insight and better understanding of SSISD student participation in STEM courses.
When comparing SSISD’s AP course completions to the U.S. AP course exam takers for
all AP STEM subjects, SSISD had a four-point lower female participation rate than the U.S.
female exam takers (Table 6). While there was a lower overall participation rate, SSISD did have
a higher participation rate in biology (+8), environmental science (+12), Physics 1 (+10), Physics
C: Mechanics (+2), Calculus BC (+15), and statistics (+1) when compared to the U.S. AP exam
test takers. Further, SSISD did lag in female participation rates in Chemistry (-11), Calculus AB
(-4), Computer Science A (-9), and computer science principles (-20). SSISD did not have
female participation in Physics 2 while 27% of U.S. female students exam takers participated.
Additionally, SSISD did not have female participation in Physics C: Electricity and Magnetism
while 24% of U.S females took the AP exam.
In Table 7. when comparing SSISD female students who took AP courses to the U.S.
female AP exam takers by ethnicity, SSISD female students lagged in comparison to the U.S.
female AP exam takers White (-2), Asian (-3), as well as Other and Two or more races (-5).
Further, while there were no overall AP STEM subject differences in Black female students,
there was a nine-point higher participation level by SSISD Hispanic female students.

72

Table 6: Percent of U.S. Female and Male AP Exam Course Takers in 2019 and SSISD Female and Male AP Course Completion in 2019
Percent of U.S. Female and Male AP Exam Course Takers in 2019 (N = 1.48M) and SSISD
Female and Male AP Course Completion (N =1,895) in 2019
U.S. AP exam takers SSISD AP completion
Female Male Female Male
AP STEM subjects 48 52 44 56
Biology 63 37 71 29
Chemistry 52 48 41 59
Environmental science 58 42 70 30
Physics 1 39 61 41 59
Physics 2 27 73 0 100
Physics C: Electricity and magnetism 24 76 0 0
Physics C: Mechanics 28 72 30 70
Calculus AB 50 50 46 54
Calculus BC 42 58 57 43
Computer science A 25 75 14 86
Computer science principles 34 66 14 86
Statistics 53 47 54 46

Note: The data is from College Board AP Program Participation and Performance Data 2019;
SSISD AP Course Completion 2019.

73

Table 7: Percent of U.S. Female AP Exam Course Takers by Ethnicity in 2019 and SSISD Female AP Course Completion by Ethnicity in 2019
Percent of U.S. Female AP Exam Course Takers by Ethnicity in 2019 (N = 1.48M) and SSISD
Female AP Course Completion by Ethnicity (N =1,895) in 2019
U.S. SSISD
W A H B O W A H B O
AP STEM Subjects 49 21 17 5 8 47 18 26 5 3
Biology 50 18 18 6 8 45 24 44 6 4
Chemistry 48 24 14 5 8 61 13 22 4 0
Environmental science 52 13 21 6 8 64 7 29 0 0
Physics 1 45 22 19 5 9 49 14 32 4 2
Physics 2 48 29 11 3 8 0 0 0 0 0
Physics C: Elec and Mag 41 40 7 3 9 0 0 0 0 0
Physics C: Mechanics 46 33 9 3 9 29 14 29 14 14
Calculus AB 51 19 17 5 7 43 19 29 4 4
Calculus BC 46 33 10 3 8 56 18 13 9 4
Computer science A 34 40 11 4 10 35 35 18 12 0
Computer science principles 38 24 20 9 9 35 35 18 12 0
Statistics 53 19 16 5 7 11 4 7 1 0

Note: The data is from College Board AP Program Participation and Performance Data 2019,
SSISD AP Course Completion 2019
W = White, A= Asian, H= Hispanic, B = Black, O = Other and Two or more races
Per Texas Education Agency Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS)
student type by grade, ethnicity, and sex data, SSISD grades 9 through 12 (N= 2,438) ethnic
distribution was 54% White, 6% Asian, 31% Hispanic, 5% Black and 4% Other.

74

Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: How do secondary education counselors and
STEM teachers perceive their role in having female students enroll in STEM courses?
Counselors and STEM Teachers Believe Their Role Is to Help All Student’s Problem Solve
Counselors’ and STEM teacher’s motivation for their role stems from their genuine
desire to help students navigate their course selection and to become college, career and military
ready. Eleven out of the eleven counselors expressed that their reason for becoming a counselor,
beyond their initial interest in becoming a teacher, was driven by their belief that they needed to
help student’s problem solve. Counselor 1 expressed that “one of my favorite parts of the job is
helping kids discover [their interests]” while Counselor 6 described her interests as “being able
to hopefully not just listen but help direct students and in finding their own answers.” Counselor
3 expressed her interest in counseling as “you get to make an impact.” In addition to helping
students in their course selection, Counselor 7 communicated that “I went into education [and
counseling], specifically for the fact that I was going to empower women.”
While six of the counselors did not indicate that they had previously benefitted from
guidance and influence from a counselor, five counselors made specific reference to their own
experiences of a lack of guidance assistance in high school. This lack of guidance from a
counselor, teacher or parent sparked their interest to be a K–12 secondary counselor. Counselor 4
shared that “my upbringing, is what prepared me for this job. So, my lack of resources, lack of
mentors and all of that led me to make some mistakes that I try [now] to help students avoid.”
Similarly, Counselor 5 offered that she “just didn't have any career guidance and I wanted to give
that to students.”
75

Counselor 9 expressed that counselors and teachers can be very influential in a student’s
future enrollment decision making and described his own experience as motivation to become a
counselor. He described the power of an educator’s counsel and influence:
I talk about that power of voice. The message that I got [in high school] was from that
teacher. ‘You won't ever be able to do [anything]’. Well, I sit here today as someone who
overcame [negativity from a teacher], but it took a very, very long time. So that's the
reason why I say as educators, we must always be very, very aware of what we're saying
and how it comes across to a student because that one message [makes a difference].
Several counselors expressed that students need more than assistance on course selection,
students need help on when they steer away from their objectives as Counselor 2 described as
getting “off track”. Further, Counselor 2 shared that their interest in counseling was in “helping
kids figure out what’s going on, why did we get off track and how can we get you back on track”
while Counselor 8 “wanted to do mental health some more in a high school setting.” When
asking a follow up question “do you ever think about females in STEM when teaching?”, STEM
Teacher 1 responded with “Constantly. Constantly. I would have to say, it is my number one
focus as a professional.” STEM Teacher 1 also offered that “female engagement in STEM” was
her greatest objective and that “I have attended numerous workshops and online professional
developments about this. I’m so passionate about it.” While counselors’ and STEM teachers
confirmed that the motivation for their role was driven by their desire to help all students in K–
12 public secondary education, there were views expressed indicating that gender-stereotypes
beliefs exist in counselors, teachers, and students.
76

Counselors and STEM Teacher’s Awareness of Bias in Their Role
Counselors and STEM teachers have mixed perceptions of whether gender stereotype
beliefs about STEM exist or not. Five counselors and one STEM teacher responded that were not
aware of the presence of any type of bias from parents and classmates regarding STEM. This
evidence casts doubt on preconceived notions or beliefs that K–12 secondary male students
outperform their female peers in STEM courses. Counselor 1 and STEM Teacher 2 voiced nearly
the same response and that was “I don't know of any [bias] specifically.” Counselor 7 shared that
“I had not heard anything.” STEM Teacher 1 shared the same sentiment as “I don't see as much.”
Counselor 11 went further and attested to her belief that “No. I think it's very accepted and
encouraged by parents and even by peers.” Counselor 2 also responded about her perception of
the presence of gender stereotype beliefs with “I don't think so, I think the fact that almost all of
our STEM teachers are female, it really breaks that [bias] down very quickly.”
Five counselors and two STEM teachers did indicate in their responses that gender
stereotype and ability beliefs do exist and they attribute the presence to parents influence of
gender bias about their student’s math and science abilities, especially in early childhood.
Counselor 4 and 10 confirmed the presence of gender stereotype beliefs as Counselor 10 offered
that she sees “Traditional bias [toward] roles and when it comes to bias gender roles and I think
that is a huge part of [the bias].” Counselor 10 continued by expressing that “I do think that, in
my opinion, we get stuck on traditional gender roles and it's just our responsibility to give out as
much information as we can.” STEM Teacher 3 offered the greatest evidence in a stereotype
endorsement that “I don't I think the girls can do everything the boys can do.”
In her counseling role, Counselor 3 indicated that she had not heard about the presence of
any bias, but she did share that “I personally think [bias] starts back in elementary. [Bias] starts
77

in kindergarten, first grade.” Counselor 5 voiced that “They do get bias from adults, yes,
absolutely, unfortunately.” STEM Teacher 1 mentioned that “It’s pre-adolescent or during
adolescence, I think. The majority sway is societal, and home driven and school driven biases
into more feminine or masculine careers.” Further, STEM Teacher 1 conveyed that “math and
science, I think it's just those intrinsic biases and the societal biases.”
While counselors and STEM teachers were mixed on their views of whether gender
stereotype beliefs about STEM exist or not; those that did highlight its existence indicated that
these beliefs about attributes and roles in life for females and males emerge in early childhood.
Some Counselors Have a Gender-indifferent View of Their Role
A finding that emerged in counselors’ responses to the question about how they view
their role in relation to female students enrolling in STEM courses was that some counselors
perceived that they were gender indifferent when it comes to completing their primary purpose.
The SSISD handbook established that the primary purpose of a SSISD counselor is to counsel
students to fully develop each student’s academic, career, personal, and social abilities. While
most counselors answered that they believed that they had a role in relation to female students
enrolling in STEM courses, there were two of the eleven counselors who indicated that they did
not see a gender difference when counseling. In expressing her view on gender considerations
when performing her role, Counselor 3 offered:
To be completely honest and transparent, I don't see my role any different than enrolling
a male or female student into a STEM class or any person into any kind of course. I don't
see a difference. If I’m honest with you, I don’t look at the difference between if are you
a male student or a female student. I just don't think about it.
Counselor 6 described her role as explaining course selection and articulated the following:
78

My role is just making sure that students know there’s not any classes specific to a
gender. It is specific to your desire and your learning. Nothing is closed because of
gender and encouraging both male and female to choose the best option for them is
important. And doing a lot of explaining of what those things are, what the classes consist
of, so that they make wise choices for those classes.
While counselors indicated they believed that they had a role in relation to female
students enrolling in STEM courses, a finding that emerged with just two of the counselor’s
responses indicated a gender-indifferent view of their primary counseling purpose while female
students do not readily share their views about whether STEM has a specific gender identity.
Counselors and STEM Teachers Do Not Perceive That Female Students Describe STEM
As Masculine or Feminine
Counselors and STEM teachers shared that in their experience female students very
rarely, if at all, share their views or attitudes that STEM courses have a higher correlation to a
particular gender identity. Most counselors and STEM teachers shared that they were not aware
of any female students’ perceptions that certain courses had a higher gender identity based upon
any gender-stereotypic beliefs. When asked about their perception of whether students view
STEM to be either masculine or feminine, nine of the eleven counselors as well as STEM
Teachers 1 and 3 indicated that female students do not share that certain STEM courses are either
masculine or feminine while Counselors 8 and 9 shared that students “sometimes and “rarely”
indicated that female students describe STEM to be either masculine or feminine. Counselor 8
added that it is becoming more common that “we have girls in welding and boys in culinary arts
[classes] and it's very acceptable.” In reference to whether students perceive STEM to be
masculine or feminine Counselors 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 voiced almost identically that “I
79

have never heard those words.” In offering a perspective on female student gender-associated
perceptions that STEM can be masculine, STEM Teacher 1 shared that female students “Don't
articulate that but I know they realize they are a very small percentage of the room and that's how
they feel.”
Related to responses about counselor and STEM teachers views of whether female
students perceived STEM classes to be masculine or feminine, there was a generalized view
expressed about student characteristics, or the roles that are or ought to be possessed by, or
performed by, females and males. Counselor 10 voiced that there is a view that traditional roles
exist by stating:
It's kind of the traditional female roles. We have a lot of students that are interested in
nursing. We do have some females who are interested in engineering and computer
science, but it's a very low number. When it comes to computer science, math, and
engineering, those are typically occupied by male students. But anatomy and physiology
or biology for science majors, those classes are typically occupied by our female students
who are thinking about going into nursing or the medical field. And so, it's very much
traditional at times. Yeah. Lots of traditional gender roles.
As it relates to her perception of students view of STEM classes being masculine or feminine
Counselor 10 continued:
So, I don't think that they're uncomfortable. Like I said it's just a lack of knowledge. But
as far as feeling comfortable because you're a female in a traditionally male dominant
area, we don't see a lot of that. Students are picking things that they actually want to do,
and not based on just traditional roles, so I do see a difference. But I do think that this, in
80

my opinion, we get stuck on traditional gender roles and it's just our [counselor]
responsibility to give out as much [gender neutral] information as we can.
In response to the disparity question, Counselor 11 mentioned that “not to be
stereotypical, but I mean there's a lot of females in the health science coursework.” STEM
Teacher 2 described differences in female and male students by sharing the following:
[Females] are more mature. Their brain is different; their frontal lobe develops earlier,
right? I mean that's for a reason. They make better decisions. They have better long-term
thinking patterns, you know. They're looking ahead. You know, the females at that age
are looking ahead, like “What is my benefit? What's my end goal, right?” [Whereas]
males are thinking, “I need to pass the next test.” You know, where the females are
thinking “What am I going to do in college?"
While counselors and STEM teachers shared that students rarely share their views about
whether STEM are more correlated with a particular gender identity, they do express that they
have a role in both male and female enrollment in STEM courses.
Counselors and STEM Teachers Role in Female Enrollment in STEM
Regarding counselors and STEM teachers perceptions of how they see role in relation to
female enrollment in STEM courses, an emerging finding shared was that by the time a student
rises to the secondary level, the student’s beliefs are very developed based upon the influences in
their environment that shaped their thoughts and ultimately their enrollment behavior.
Counselors and STEM teachers shared that to improve female enrollment in STEM courses, the
education of students and parents must be conducted and that the timing must be earlier and at
the elementary and intermediate school levels.
Counselor 1 indicated awareness of STEM programs is important to student enrollment:
81

I think we could start advertising earlier [about] all of our STEM programs. Not just right
when they're signing up for [high school] classes. [The idea is to] bring awareness ahead
of time because you throw so much at them right when we're enrolling.
Counselor 1 continued “and it's got to start much younger. When the kids are younger, that's
huge.”
In response to how she sees her role in relation to female enrollment in STEM courses,
Counselor 10 responded with:
I just think that, in order to break the gender bias. Again, gender roles is what I call it. It
has to start early. As much as we try to have these conversations, often as counselors, it's
really something that needs to start really early like not just [at the] high school level.
[Awareness] needs to start more at the elementary level, so that we build a culture of
equity instead of waiting. So, they've already got lots of information [that] may [or may]
not be accurate. So that is something that we, as a community, just have to get better at.”
When asking a probing question about what grade level to start STEM awareness,
Counselor 10 indicated that it needed to start at home even before enrollment in school “I
definitely think it should be like a home thing.” She continued to share:
As early as Kindergarten, even when we have career day, instead of inviting your
traditional male [to] come in to speak on STEM related things, invite different people of
different races and genders, to speak on the same issue, so that there is a like I said a level
of equity. I think that the more that students see there is not a heavy female population,
but we could change that if they see it more often.
Counselor 11 offered that information could highlight females in STEM roles by:
82

Really pushing out more information in a format that students would like - videos of the
different types of work that's done in these [STEM] classes and what skills are a good
match. What career opportunities can come after the fact, so because that's where it, you
know that's where it is, we're looking at okay who's going to be selecting what classes,
and so I think there are some ways that we can just present the information that's in a
either gender-neutral way or showcase females who are in those different industries and
are in those different majors in those [STEM] courses.
Counselor 2 shared that SSISD has had optional STEM related Saturday camps for elementary
and intermediate female students and attested:
I love some of the things that SSISD is doing with the STEM [through Saturday] camps
at a very young age. I think it has to start very, very young because they have to be
exposed to more females, and that needs to start on career days at very, very young age
[through] science camps and experiences.
Counselor 2 closed with:
I think that is super important that the district [starts] at the younger age on those kids
[who] are not in high school yet so I’m hoping that we can continue [STEM] Saturdays
where it's STEM and we bring [female students] in people and they have all these
experiences. If we can continue that, and it's not just a one-year [one-time] thing that by
the time those kids are in high school, that is something that they're excited and thinking
about. I think we have to be intentional…to get some females together.
Counselor 3 emphasized that STEM course and careers awareness needs to start early:
I personally think it starts [at elementary]. We need to go back to elementary.
[Awareness] starts in Kindergarten and First grade, we need to start there with females
83

and engineering. With STEM, it starts early with elementary school. “Like hey, this is a
profession, like look over here.” So absolutely the earlier that we can start things and
have females in as role models and doing really cool science things and engineering and
math and I think that you have to start it in elementary. I think there's some ideology that
happens between even junior high and high school and females take a different path. I
wish it wasn't so, but I think you start early. As some positive influencers. Getting
[female students] involved in the extracurricular part of it and clubs and organizations
with their youngers back in junior high.
Counselor 4 answered “STEM program for girls” and further noted:
I'd love to have a Career Day, again. I just feel like that's such a powerful way to expose
students to career opportunities. You know it's just a good way for kids to find to kind of
relate or identify themselves with people [in STEM] and what they do. It would be great
to have, especially, female speakers. I love it when you have both [females and males]
when it goes both ways, not just but, like you know males.
Counselor 5 offered a similar view about programs that could be “Even in the summer. Even
camps. Just to get our kids interested in STEM.” Counselor 7 voiced “I know we have had
STEM days in our [school] district and I don't think we specifically target females.”
Counselor 8 stated that when she was in a previous school district “meetings [were] held
specifically for girls who are interested in those fields and informational meetings and
informational meetings, not only for the students, but for the students and the parents.”
Counselor 9 mentioned that “I’m not opposed at all to students in elementary school starting to
talk about what [STEM] looks like. Make it an option to be able to go down for a day into any of
84

our CTE STEM related courses here at the school and just observe. If all you can do is talk to me
about it and I don't get to see it or experience it or know more about it [directly].”
STEM Teacher 1 reported that early education and developing a sense of belonging for female
students is important as:
We have found out that most females, once they enter adolescence, they have been
shaped by some external and internal factors. I think [it is] more of a growth mindset of
students before female students. Before they hit adolescence in a lower grade level [it] is
helpful for them to gain confidence that they belong in what is considered a historically
masculine field. You know, once they hit our [high school], their mind has been made up
or they've shaped “I can't do this” or “You know my work isn't” and “You know, I can't”
or “I don't belong here.” That's where the work needs to be done at the district level,
where younger, pre-adolescent, exposure to those confidence skills [occurs and starts]
building ideas.
STEM Teacher 1 envisioned “If I had my druthers, I would definitely have lower-level grade
teachers [through professional development] understand the language and the statements and this
growth mindset at an earlier age coming into this process so that we would not have such a
limitation by this time. Yeah, I think just an emphasis on the push on the lower grade levels up to
where I am [in high school]. Specific to K–12 secondary female students’ beliefs about STEM,
STEM Teacher 3 shared that “By the time you get them or when they enter your classroom a lot
of [beliefs about STEM] are formed. So back up, where in the pipeline did that occur?” STEM
Teacher 3 also noted the following:
Yeah, we definitely could be doing more. I definitely feel like we could be doing more.
I’m not gonna lie. Before I started this job [3 years ago] it never crossed my mind that we
85

would have low [female] participation. When I got here, I was like, oh wow, this is
significant. Not only that I mean we don't have any [gender] diversity, I have no [gender]
diversity to speak of. I think is weird. Like, it's odd.
Regarding their role in relation to female enrollment in STEM courses, feedback from
counselors and STEM teachers was that by the time a student gets to the secondary level they
have formed their beliefs about their abilities and STEM, and opportunity exists to create
awareness in the elementary and intermediate level. While these educators shared that there is an
earlier education opportunity, they also share that they also support students with social and
emotional support.
Social Emotional Learning Aspects of Counselor and STEM Teacher Roles
Findings that emerged through the course of the interviews about the frequency that K–
12 secondary counselors meet with middle and high school students centered around a lack of
time to fully meet their role objectives. The SSISD employee handbook indicated that a
counselor’s role in SSISD includes counsel of students to fully develop each student’s academic,
career, personal, and social abilities. While counselors work to meet those objectives, they did
share that they spend a lot of unplanned time on social emotional learning issues. While
unsolicited in the interviews, seven of the eleven counselors mentioned social emotional aspects
of student engagement to be a part of their time in school and how takes away from their desired
frequency to meet with all students as they at times focus on this subset.
Consistent with each SSISD counselor’s goal of meeting with students at least once a year for
individual planning, Counselor 11 shared that for standard counseling activities “Ideally, I would
meet with each student at least once a year” yet:
86

There are many students who I see many times during the year and not always for those
purposes, just as an as needed basis, or I’m checking in on them or they're coming down
to see me. Because they're going through some things and they just need to see me for
other reasons, so kind of a mixed bag, but ideally in my world, it would be a minimum of
one-time check in.
Counselor 5 addressed a lot of students’ “deer in headlights” issues around course selection
while Counselor 2 mentioned that “there was a lot of social emotional learning stuff.” Counselor
3 indicated that she assists students “when they're having a panic attack” and helps to “de-
escalate them due to nervousness and anxiety.” Counselor 7 indicated that she addresses “a lot of
suicide ideations and cutting and that's where I focus my attention. She indicated that during the
COVID-19 pandemic that her time “was all on emergencies” and “a lot of the restorative circles
like when several kids were calling other kids racially motivated names.”
Counselors help students manage emotions about secondary course selection and offer
emotional support for life decisions outside of school. Counselor 8 shared that unplanned time
focuses on “How do I talk to my mom and dad guidance; how do I talk to my boyfriend or
girlfriend guidance. But we're also their school mom. I’ve been the school nurse too. I’ve taken
stitches out.” Counselor 9 offered that she is often involved in helping students role play to help
them express their interests to their parents and guardians when the adults have an opposing view
on course selections. She voiced an example of helping a student manage a tough conversation
with their parent about career choice differences during a counseling session:
Maybe there's sometimes that your dad is saying you're not going to be an engineer, and
you want to be an artist. Ok, so now's the time for you to sit down with your dad or your
87

mom or your grandfather or grandmother or whoever they may be and say, “but this is
really what I want to do.”
The finding that counselors spend a lot of unplanned time due to the social and emotional
needs of students deviated from expectations of the literature while the literature did not cover
how to address their role in a global pandemic.
Counselors Educate Parents and Help Students With Difficult Conversations
When responding to the interview question of “In meeting with students, does family
ever come up in the meetings with them?”, counselors engage with parents frequently and
parental education is a key component of their role. Counselor 10 offered that parent
participation is key to the secondary counseling and course selection process:
There are lots of conversations that we have with parents, I actually invite parents to sit in
on the meetings that I have with students, I think it's important for them to understand a
lot of the things that I say to students. Obviously with our Freshmen, [parents] are
required to be there [for counseling sessions], but even with our Sophomores, Juniors and
Seniors I’ll tell them “Hey, tell your parents, if they want to [telephone conference] call
in, they can so that they can hear this information to.” I think that that helps break down
some of those barriers of you should stick with this and not this or you should go to this
major in liberal arts, instead of STEM related because of the lack of [parent] knowledge
[about STEM].
Counselors shared that parents do not always understand what comprises the STEM
course offering and rigor. Counselor 6 voiced that “I interact with parents, a lot. Parents want to
know all the things. So yes, I interact with parents, a lot again it's even with our parents, there is
a certain level of knowledge that has to be given.” She continued:
88

I do have students who are driven by their parents, and [these parents] may have a
distorted view of what STEM really is, and so it's viewed as something that's very
difficult, and it can be in some areas.”
Counselor 11 highlighted that “Sometimes there is a discrepancy between what the student wants
to know, what they're interested in, what the family is interested in. ‘What I’m interested in [is]
this, but my family's not real supportive.’” Counselor 11 continued:
Well, for sure in both positive and negative ways, so I see a lot of parents that are push,
push, push, pushing and that's not necessarily bad but you know, sometimes I do see
students that I feel like are overextended or overwhelmed with upper-level coursework
because of that parental push.
Counselors Help Students With Parental Pressures Surrounding Course Enrollment
In student counseling sessions that include the parents, STEM Teacher 2 shared that she
often assists students in difficult conversations when “Sometimes you have parents that are a
little pushy with the kids. Now that I see all the time, especially on emphasis on GPA, that is.”
On course enrollment choices, Counselor 9 offered that parents do share with their children
directly with the following:
Yes, this is what we want you to do. This is where we're pushing you. This is what we
believe you're capable of” and [parents] begin to prepare their students and their young
ladies, for that very, very early on.
Counselor 11 articulated that she helps students and is mindful of her role as a counselor when
she shared that I help students:
89

Talk through some of those [conflict] and those can be really tricky, but I tried to
remember reminding myself. That I’m here to serve the student and, yes, the parents are
an important part of the process, but my job is to focus on the student’s needs.
Counselor 2 shared that when conflict on upper-level course selection exists between students
and parents’ interests she supports through advocacy to the parents:
I will tell the student that sometimes when they're expressing that “I really want to do this
class, but my parents are opposed to it.” I say, “Well, I have no problem having a phone
call and making that phone call [to parents] and being an advocate for you and it's
making sure they understand the importance of that class.”
Counselor and STEM teachers share that parents directly influence and are a factor
preventing enrollment in STEM courses. Counselor 8 conveyed that “I have worked with
students before whose parents have encouraged them to take other courses, besides engineer and
courses yes; female students.” She also shared “[Parents] comments they make when students
come home with homework starts in Elementary. The way they respond to the homework
influences the perception of math and science.” Counselor 10 expressed that “GPA is all attached
to family” while Counselor 11 indicated that “Sometimes I think it's the parents drive [for their
child]. “Like, I need to get into an Ivy league school’, or “I want to be a doctor, so I have to do, I
have to do these things.” Finally, STEM Teacher 1 described “So, we will hear from time to time
[from students] that a parent has pushed their kid into the class because they want their kid with a
high GPA. That has come from home. Like a push into it.”
COVID-19 Pandemic Challenged Counselors Ability to Support Students
While there was no interview question related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic,
which was a year and half old at the time of the study, a finding that emerged centered around
90

the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on counselors and STEM teacher’s ability to guide students.
For context in SSISD, the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020 and continued through the
time of the interviews in August 2021. The COVID-19 outbreak led to school closures and a
rapid transition to remote student instruction and subsequent adaptation to a virtual environment
to manage and attempt to deliver expected educational services. While the COVID-19 pandemic
was not yet over, indicators from the interviews pointed to a concern about how the lack of
guidance during the pandemic and that could have a future impact on student STEM course
enrollment.
Ten of the 11 counselors and two of three STEM teachers mentioned that the COVID-19
pandemic forced adjustments to a virtual environment resulting in reduced student engagement
and created additional social and emotional challenges for students. During this time, counselors
and STEM teachers had less time engaging with students. This lack of support and inability to
offer basic counseling services due to higher priority of adapting to a virtual environment
surfaced the concern that the lack of engagement with students could lead issues on the planning
of their high school classes. Counselor 4 expressed that “Last year was very, very different. It
was just a really hard year, you know, we didn't really talk to kids as much” and referenced that
counselors were focused on the essentials as “it was just all paperwork. A little crazy. So, it's
been a while, since I’ve had a regular year where kids just drop in to chat with me.”
While the Silver Star ISD counselor goal has been to meet with every high school student
at least once a year, Counselor 11 voiced that “it was a crazy COVID-19 year, so it was not
typical, so in that respect I didn't meet with every student last year at all, and it was kind of a
triage approach of what is the most important.” Counselor 9 indicated that “Last year was a very,
very, very challenging year for everyone where the environment in which we worked last year
91

was really difficult” and went on further to share that “it was very difficult for us to meet with
students.” STEM Teacher 3 expressed what seemed like frustration when she shared that “there
were some missed opportunities” with her inability to meet with students about STEM in high
school as “I never got to meet any of the eighth graders across the street. They wouldn't allow me
to go over there [to the Junior High School]. I mean, I did a video and stuff but it's not the same.”
Counselor 2, who indicated their motivation to be a counselor was in part to help students “get
on track”, also shared that “Due to COVID, I believe there was a higher incidence of mental
health problems. And so, I was working again on cutting and suicide ideation…the mental health
of the kids was our number one goal.” Counselor 7 echoed the same “they were in virtual and did
not do well.”
The COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on counselors and STEM teacher’s engagement
opportunities with students and their ability to deliver services and it has also created a gap for
parents as well. While counselors are helping with support student, they are also helping students
with guidance on how to have difficult conversations with parent concerning their students
course enrollment that can lead to STEM enrollment growth.
Observed Personal Characteristics of Female Students in STEM
When asked about whether there were any personal characteristics that they had noticed
in female students that persisted with STEM courses throughout secondary education, counselors
and STEM teachers expressed how female students have had their interest sparked through
exposure to a family member leading to their passion for learning paired with being organized
and goal driven (Table 8). Table 8 details the findings about how participants perceived female
student characteristics that take STEM courses.
92

In reference to the personal characteristics of female students enrolled in STEM courses,
Counselor 1 shared that “They are planners” and voiced their plans about “this is where I’m
looking at applying to college. This is what I’m looking at majoring in and it drives their core
selection.” Counselor 3 voiced that “They have their four-year plan. They have their six-year
plan. They have their eight-year plan. They have a retirement plan, you know.” STEM Teacher 1
indicated that their confidence can come from having “a father figure at home” while “some kids
look at, I have this teacher, or my older sibling had this teacher and I want that teacher so I’m
going to take that course.”
93

Table 8: Summary of Female Students Characteristics Who Enroll in STEM Shared by Counselors and STEM Teachers
Summary of Female Students Characteristics Who Enroll in STEM Shared by Counselors and
STEM Teachers
Source Characteristics shared by counselors and STEM teachers
Counselor 1 Organized. Plan. Confident. Help others.
Counselor 2 Competitive. Creative. Imaginative. Independent.
Counselor 3 Self-esteem. Stand out. Go getter. Goal oriented. Plan.
Counselor 4 Strong. Strong academically. Strong work ethic. High achieving.
Counselor 5 Stubborn. Their own catalyst. Self-confident.
Counselor 6 Organization skills. Resilient. Desire to learn. Have support from others.
Counselor 7 Passion. Have parental support.
Counselor 8 Tenacity. Independent Less concerned with going along with the crowd.
Counselor 9 Real interest in learning. Love a challenge. Possess drive. Show passion.
Counselor 10 Have mentor.
Counselor 11 Driven (by money or other aspects). Goal oriented.
STEM teacher 1 Have mentor. Truly interested in the curriculum.
STEM teacher 2 Curious. Ready to work.
STEM teacher 3 Not afraid to make mistakes.

STEM Teacher 3 referenced that an attribute they witnessed was that “a lot of my female
engineers who continue on through the program, they, have a father who's in STEM.” Counselor
3 voiced that “they're very goal oriented. They knew what they want. They know what they need
to do [in school].” Counselor 11 went beyond their secondary education and mentioned that
students in STEM are highly goal-oriented and driven by commenting the following:
94

Some students are very driven by a certain aspect of certain careers, like the salary.
They're like, oh wow, you know engineers make a lot of money. Well, yes, they do, they
can, and so you know they choose differently and pursue STEM.
Counselor 9 offered that female students differentiate themselves from their classmates as
their interests have been sparked and are motivated for STEM. Further, these female students
are:
The ones who are passionate about STEM for a STEM career, STEM future. Those are
the kids that are going to come in and say ‘this is what I love to do. This is what I want to
do. This is right.’ Their passion shines really, really, really clearly. They will talk about
how passionate they are [about STEM] and how much they love that work. It's more the
other side that you don't hear a lot, like, I just don't think I would like deal with all that.
Counselors and STEM teacher shared their perceptions about the personal characteristics
that they had noticed, and they expressed that female students have had their interest sparked by
a family member leading to their passion for learning, development of goals coupled with solid
organizational skills.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: In what ways are the challenges and benefits of
taking STEM courses in middle and high school for female students described by middle and
high school counselors and STEM teachers
Counselors and STEM Teachers Perceive STEM Enrollment to Be Growing
A majority of K–12 secondary counselors and STEM teachers perceive that female
student STEM enrollment is changing and that increased growth is benefitting from other female
students’ encouragement and female role model examples. Seven counselors shared that they
95

believe female student STEM enrollment to be increasing in entry level STEM courses yet not in
advanced courses while three counselors were not certain and refrained from commenting while
one counselor’s perception was that STEM for their high school female students was not
increasing. The three STEM teachers’ responses were consistent with the seven counselors who
indicated STEM was growing in entry STEM courses but not in advanced science and math
related STEM courses. One of the three STEM teachers, STEM Teacher 2, highlighted that
female student growth in computer science was “growing dramatically.”
Counselors and STEM teachers who shared that STEM enrollment for female secondary
students was growing shared that growth, especially in entry levels of the SSISD STEM
programs of study pathways, is occurring because of other female students’ encouragement,
female STEM teachers as well as extracurricular activities. The SSISD course catalog offered
pathways for students to follow from ninth grade through 12th grade in the SSISD STEM
Programs of Study in computer science, game and application development, robotics as well as
engineering’s Project Lead the Way. Counselor 3 indicated that “[STEM] is definitely
increasing. I definitely think there's females encouraging females and I also think, having female
instructors and having clubs and organizations that are female supported it’s definitely a positive
influencer.” Counselor 1 also shared” They're growing, I think, because more are taking them
and then the younger ones are kind of following suit and as different courses become more
popular.” STEM Teacher 2 was the most definitive on their view about STEM growing and
voiced that “my [student] numbers have been growing dramatically. The program was pretty
dead when I got here 3 years ago.”
In contrast to the counselors and STEM teachers that discussed that STEM enrollment
was growing, Counselors 4, 6, and 7 shared that they could not comment on whether STEM
96

course enrollment for female secondary students was growing or not. Counselor 4 stated that “I
could not tell you the numbers” while Counselor 6 articulated that “I don't know that I could say
with fidelity whether or not. I’m not sure” while Counselor 7 reported that “I cannot comment. I
don't have the numbers on that.” Counselor 2 voiced “I think it actually is staying right about the
same, I have not seen an increase. … I have not seen growth”
While only three counselors indicated that they were not certain that female student
STEM enrollment was growing or not, most K–12 secondary counselors and STEM teachers
perceive that female student STEM enrollment is growing in SSISD. While there was a majority
who indicated that STEM was growing, counselors and STEM teachers perceive that there is a
disparity in female and male STEM course enrollment.
Disparity Exists Between Female and Male Enrollment in STEM
Counselors and STEM teachers perceive enrollment to be equal in the core STEM
subjects for high school graduation yet see a disparity in advanced STEM course pathways
enrollment. According to the SSISD course catalog, the core STEM subjects required for
graduation include Algebra I, Geometry, Biology, Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC) or
Chemistry and advanced science courses (Table 9).

97

Table 9: STEM Endorsement Options for Business and Industry
STEM Endorsement Options for Business and Industry
Subject SSISD minimum graduation requirements
Science Biology
Integrated physics and chemistry (IPC) or chemistry
Advanced science course
Mathematics Algebra I
Geometry
Math elective
English language arts English I
English II
English III
English IV or English language arts elective
Social studies World geography or U.S. history
Government and economics
Physical education One credit
Language other than English One credit
Fine arts One credit
Speech 1/2 credit
Health 1/2 credit
General electives Four credits

Advanced STEM courses in the SSISD course catalog included Computer Science I (AP)
and II (AP), TAP Game Programming and Design, TAP Mobile App Development, Engineering
Science, Aerospace Engineering, and Digital Electronics (Table 10).

98

Table 10: STEM Pathways Course Sequence for Business and Industry
STEM Pathways Course Sequence for Business and Industry
Career pathway Junior high
jumpstart
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Computer
science
(Track 1)
Algebra I and
Fundamentals
of computer
science
AP Computer
Science I
AP
Computer
Science A
AP
Computer
Science II
AP
Computer
Science III
Computer
science
(Track 2)
Business
information
management
Fundamentals
of computer
science
AP
Computer
Science I
AP
Computer
Science A
AP
Computer
Science II
Engineering Principles of
applied
engineering
Introduction
to engineering
design
Engineering
science
Aerospace
engineering
or digital
electronics
Engineering
design &
development
Game &
application
development
(Track 1)
Algebra I and
Fundamentals
of computer
science
AP Computer
Science I
AP
Computer
Science A
AP Game
Program &
Design
AP Mobile
Application
Development
Game &
application
development
(Track 2)
Business
information
management
Fundamentals
of computer
science
AP
Computer
Science I
AP
Computer
Science A
AP Game
Program &
Design

99

Counselors and STEM teachers shared that they perceive K–12 secondary course
enrollment, on a percentage basis, to be roughly 50% female and 50% male in the required
subjects needed for graduation yet articulated a disparity in elective, advanced courses, and
STEM pathways with responses ranging from 20% to 40% for female enrollment while male
enrollment ranged from 60% to 80% of students enrolled. Counselors 1 and 4 described the
lower female to male enrollment disparity to be in high school college Dual Credit college
courses, where high school students enroll in Silver Star ISD’s local community college course
and receive simultaneous academic credit for the course from both the college and their Silver
Star ISD high school, as well as in Advanced Placement (AP) courses offered. Counselors 1 and
4 also shared that colleges may grant course credit to students who obtain high scores on the AP
examinations.
Counselor 7 conveyed that “I think, in the core subject’s math and science, I think it is
split evenly male female” and further offered that for “AutoCAD and engineering, I don't think
those are 50 [%] male 50 [%] female.” Counselor 1 indicated a “disparity in the higher-level
STEM courses” while Counselor 2 offered had an emphatic comment of “Oh, 100% [disparity].”
Counselor 3 articulated a that “there's a huge difference favoring the males versus females, and I
would have to say I’m just thinking probably two thirds [male] to one third [female]” and then
indicated that the disparity “maybe three fourths [male] to one quarter [female]." While STEM
Teacher 1 shared that “Right now, we're about 78% male and about 22% female.” A meaningful
description of the disparity in female enrollment came from STEM Teacher 2 who voiced that
“Currently in my highest-level course, I have one female and one out of about 13,” while STEM
Teacher 3 echoed their similar observation that “my first period class doesn't have one girl, and I
think they added somebody yesterday, so I think I have two out of 25.” Counselor 10, who
100

shared confirmed their view that disparity exists, offered a brief articulation on where students
who had enrolled in the core classes yet changed to alternatives. The reason offered was that “a
lot of my students who are in STEM that are female is more of nursing or in the medical field
and those are traditional, what we call traditional female roles.”
While counselors and STEM teachers perceived enrollment to be equal in the core STEM
subjects for high school graduation, a disparity in advanced STEM course was perceived to exist,
yet there were certain female student characteristics that they have observed about female
students that persist in STEM.
Influences on Student Course Enrollments
Parents’ Have the Largest Influence on Their Students Course Selection
Counselors and STEM teachers noted that parents directly influence their child’s school
course enrollment based upon their college and career aspirations for their student. Counselor 1
stated that direct parental influence on STEM course enrollment is whether “Their mom or dad is
in a STEM area” and “sometimes the parental influence can be very direct.” Counselor 4
underscored the point about the influence of family members whose careers are STEM related:
Their own parents are in the STEM world and so that in influences their choice. Yeah,
recently, I’ve had conversations with two Asian female students who wanted to pursue
something other than STEM, but because of their families, they had to do they had to
follow a STEM pathway.
STEM Teacher 1 shared specifically that parents that are employed in STEM are direct
influences on students STEM enrollment:
Yes, I purposefully ask them what made them choose my class and I get a variety of
responses but my secondary question always to them is “What does your father do?’ and
101

almost 100% of the time their father is in STEM in some way, if not it's some other
influential family member.
When asked whether they perceive that parents directly or indirectly influence their
children's view of their abilities, Counselor 2’s response was “100% and very, very directly.” In
contrast, Counselor 4 responded with “not specifically, no." while Counselor 5 echoed that “I
don't hear that.” Most counselor responses about parent’s direct influence on their children’s own
views of their abilities in STEM were similar to what Counselor 10 reported:
[Parent’s place] lots of stipulations of what you can, and you can't do, and family is big
when it comes to career planning, choosing the college that they want to attend, to grades,
to GPA. It is all attached to family.
Counselor 11 echoed a similar view when mentioning a recent student who was sharing “Like,
well my mom wants me to take these classes” because “everyone in my family does such and
such or everyone in my family went to such and such school so some of those traditions in the
family.” STEM Teacher 1 voiced that where a parent attended college was an influence on where
they might enroll in college:
There's a home factor. Well, the only thing I ever hear is you know “My Mom was here.
She really wants me to go here. My Dad went here and really wants me to go here. My
whole family graduated from college and they really want to go here.”
Counselor 1 highlighted that parents that did not complete a four-year college or university
degree are a passionate about their student’s course selection in that “many of them, are like,
‘We want better for you. We want you to go to college. We don't know how to do that, but you
need to meet with Ms. Counselor 1.’”
102

During course selection, Counselor 3 communicated that parents often drive their
student’s enrollment decisions:
When we had face to face meetings during the freshmen portfolios, we would sit down
with the parents and the parents were very emphatic that these are the classes that we're
going to take regardless of if you're a male or female.
Counselor 6 mentioned that “I think a huge basis [of course selection] is parents and their
direction and what their goals are for their child. You see them easily move into those [STEM]
classes if the parents are pushing for college.” Further, and specific to STEM, Counselor 6 noted
that “you will see [parents push] them into trying computers and being interested in computers. I
have a lot of kids go into the computer science because that's an interest to [the parents].
Parents are insistent upon their child taking advanced courses and minimize whether their
student has the capacity for the advanced courses. Counselor 1 shared that in a recent parent
engagement about their student taking a particular math course that the parents were:
Very insistent. “No, my child needs to be in College Algebra” and the child could not
even qualify or use the eligibility as they just were not there yet and getting that parent to
understand, it's okay [is a challenge].
Counselor 7 indicated that “I had a parent yesterday, who was trying to talk to his daughter into
taking certain classes and she did not want to take those classes” while Counselor 1 expressed:
Sometimes, I think it is hard for parents to understand. They think well, all their other
friends who are taking this, so she needs to be taking this, you know, class. So sometimes
it can be hard for them to realize, but like I said every kid's different in their ability, you
know it's completely different.
103

STEM Teacher 2 relayed a situation where a parent insisted that their child be enrolled in an
advanced computer science and minimized the student’s capacity for the course:
I had my first-year teaching, I had a student who was a Special Education student and
was very low on the spectrum yet was able to get around by himself and could talk but
couldn't really hold a conversation. You know, very interested in Thomas [the Tank
Engine] Train, right. Thomas [the Tank Engine] Train, Elmo and Sponge Bob were his
interests, and the mom was like “he's going to be a computer programmer.’ And I was
like, okay, ‘I don't know if you know’. I’m trying to say it as gently, as I can, because I
mean there's a lot of feelings there you know a lot of hopes and dreams, but at the same
time, if we don't start being realistic about some of this stuff, we're doing your child a
disservice. You know, like we need to be doing some life skills training [instead], we
need to be doing some job training, you know.”
Counselors shared that the ultimate course enrollment decisions reside with the parents,
but course selection decisions can be based upon the positive and negative signals about their
child’s abilities (as well as their own abilities). Enrollment choices can be based off parents
positive and negative signals about their own STEM abilities as well as their child’s beliefs.
Counselor 11 highlighted that a student can be influenced on future math course enrollment
when students hear from parents “Well, I’m not good at math” in the counseling conversations
and outside of school. Further, the counselor noted that parents “directly influence their students’
selection because ‘Well, if you choose that class, I can't help you. I’m not going to be any help to
you if you choose calculus or pre-calculus.” Counselor 6 shared that parents send negative
signals as “they're quick to tell me when kids are not good at math or science and take it as that's
104

just the way it is.” Counselor 8 described that parents often express their view of their own
abilities and how that can influence their own child’s beliefs about their abilities:
The comments they make when students come home with homework start in elementary.
The way they respond to the homework [at home] influences the perception of math and
science. And I don't think people realize it, but it does not start in high school and it does
not start in physics and it does not start in calculus, it starts in kindergarten. Starts with
separating M&M’s and counting. It's the way people make comments. It's the way
parents and adults handle the frustration level of students when they start young. That's
how the littles perception of math and science is formed.
Counselor 9 shared that they have directly observed parents voicing to their student “You know,
you're not really that smart in math so maybe you shouldn't do this. Maybe you shouldn't do
engineering, that's pretty hard. Those are things that parents have told students.”
Counselor 3 shared that in SSISD “parents have the ultimate say because they have the veto
power right” and “it's what the parent wants is what the parent gets because they get the veto
power.” While parents may have the ultimate approval of a secondary student’s course
enrollment plan, Counselor 1 voiced that “sharing information with parents is super important
too, because it's a family thing and the [students] future should be a family discussion.”
According to counselors and STEM teachers, parents directly influence their child’s school
course enrollment choices based upon the parent’s college and career aspirations for their
student, and the next largest influence on a student’s course enrollment decisions is a student’s
peer group.
105

Students’ Course Selection Decisions Are Also Influenced by Their Friends
Counselors and STEM teachers shared that K–12 secondary students trust their friends’
course selections and their friends influence their own enrollment decisions. Counselor 9
weighed in that peers are a large influence when asked about what influences student’s course
selection. This same peer influence sentiment was perceived by Counselor 1 but for 90% of
students as she voiced “I think they're all really influenced by their peers, but then you have kids
really at the top of the class [that indicate] ‘I’m going to take my own classes.’” Counselor 10
shared a typical student conversation about influences in that “‘I am talking to my best friend and
we just decided that we were going to do this together’” and she further described counseling
discussions where students explained their rationale for course selection as “hearing friends talk
about a specific career path and [they] don't know a whole lot about that ‘because I trust my
friend.’” Counselor 3 conveyed that “Peers is the number one influence [after parents], I would
say. With the social part of it, saying you know ‘What are my friends doing?’. It’s definitely a
huge influencer with scheduling.”
Counselors and STEM teachers also articulated that students are influenced by their
social network and make their course selections based upon their perception of fun which has a
high correlation to whether their friends are in the class as well. Counselor 3 offered that “The
number one thing for our teenagers is your friends list or the number one influencer are your
friends and they're hanging out with people they want to be like.” Counselor 5 echoed that
enrollment decisions are based are “because their friends are in it” and Counselor 8 underscored
the point that “Course enrollments, unfortunately at the high school level, are [based upon] their
friends. Sometimes it's fortunate.” Finally, Counselor 6 responded that students:
106

Decisions are made by “How fun does the class look at this level?”, so you see a lot of
my buddies going to be in Principles of Human Services so maybe I’ll do that, instead of
going into the engineering class.
Counselors and STEM teachers shared that K–12 secondary female students course
selections are influenced by how many other females are in the same class. The implication for
future female student enrollment in STEM, based upon female students’ decisions about the
presence of other females, is not favorable to representation. Counselor 11, at the start of the
2020-2021 school year, indicated that “I talked to a few girls and I think they may sign up” and
that view was based upon her assessment that those female students will do “obviously what
their [female] friends are doing and that is going to influence their choices.” Counselor 2 shared
an example of the tradeoff among STEM and fine arts courses that female students make:
If I have a kid that must choose between Drill Team and Project Lead the Way (PLTW),
they’re going to choose Drill Team because that's what, you know, that's where their
social network is and everything as it should be right and so.
All three STEM teachers offered similar reasons that female students share as to why
they persist in STEM or not. STEM Teacher 3 highlighted that decisions are based off “Social
pressure. They have to know that they're not going to sit in a class by themselves and not know
anybody and not have any friends.” STEM Teacher 1 mentioned that students enroll based upon
whether their friends are also enrolled by sharing the following:
It's friends, like what their circle of friends are into. What they're hearing from their
[female] circle of friends is a kind of peer pressure into like what they think their friends
should be taking, and what their interests are they tend to kind of group up, and so I do
see like a lot of pure influence in this as well.
107

STEM Teacher 1 continued her line of thinking and shared “We've lost a couple girls to dance
class. We've lost some girls just because they don't have friends in the [computer science] class.”
While counselors and STEM teachers offered that students, especially female students,
are influenced by their social network, students also based their course selection decision based
upon their perception how fun a class will be and the teacher’s reputation.
Students’ STEM Course Enrollment Can Be Based Upon a Teacher’s Reputation
Counselors indicated that a student’s STEM interest and subsequent enrollment can be
based upon the teacher and the teacher’s reputation. During the interviews, counselors
specifically highlighted that students would take certain math and science classes based upon the
teacher and this preference is more pronounced when there are multiple teachers for the same
class yet not as prevalent in computer science when there is only one teacher at each campus.
Counselor 11 articulated that teachers are an important factor in their course enrollment:
Definitely, the teacher aspect is critical. I’ve known students who take a particular class
because of who teaches it. That is a fact that can't be denied. That is a reality as teachers
have their own reputations. Students will talk and say like “This teacher is awesome; you
need to take their class.” We don't really have enough [teachers in] computer science. We
have one computer science teacher. “So, if you're going to take computer science, you
have to have Mr. STEM Teacher 2” and he's an awesome, rock star, by the way, I
recommend that you visit with him.
Counselor 4 commented that “I’ve heard students talk about specific teachers like Mrs. K. You
know, they'll say, ‘You want to go to her class for calculus’” and this was reinforced in response
to the question about whether students select courses based off of the reputation of the teacher,
Counselor 5 answered:
108

Certain teacher teaches that, and they've heard that this teacher is awesome and just
makes it so much fun. We have one here and she's just amazing. She is teaching our
STEM classes, then the kids spread the word as they want to be in that class.
Counselor 11 voiced that “Our science department chair is amazing” and continued with “I think
we get a lot of buy in from students, because it is that class has a reputation, and that teacher has
a reputation.” Finally, Counselor 6 offered that a popular science teacher is often discussed as a
model teacher amongst counselors because the teacher has established a:
Norm in her class is to love those kids and to see them. That right there, I think, makes a
huge difference on how kids view science per se. Whether or not they want to go into that
or not. A teacher is the main thing that I see kids talk about, liking or not liking, or
feeling accepted by that teacher.
Consistent with the counselors view that students take certain classes based upon the teacher,
STEM Teacher 3 shared that the “personal connection is really important, it's got to be the
relationships.” STEM Teacher offered that “I think that being genuine with the kids is what
really builds that relationship. Then it makes it okay to have inadequacies. It makes it okay to set
up an environment that, you know, for learning for growth. Further, “Build the relationship and
then your classroom management issues go away.”
The reputation of a class as being hands on and containing real-life based learning
projects matters when it comes to a student's decision for future enrollment. Counselor 7 attested
that “I believe our math team and our science team are very open and do a great job with real life
projects to try to really get their interest and demonstrate how it really applies to the real world.”
Counselor 6 added that “We've hired some new teachers over the last couple of years, that teach
college and career readiness classes, and I think that they're doing it with fidelity [that promotes
109

student] interest and abilities.” Counselor 2 mentioned that effective STEM teachers as well as
AP teachers have an ability to build rapport and are patient with students to spark and maintain
their interests. “We do have some of our AP teachers [that build rapport], I think when it comes
to building rapport, I think we talked, that we cannot talk about that too much. You know they
really, really build rapport with those students and they do that in different ways, and they also
are bringing in real life experiences.”
Counselors indicated that STEM teachers spend additional time and effort getting to
know their students interests especially when female students are in the classroom. Counselor 2
shared that STEM teachers who express additional interest in female students is important to
their enrollment by:
Really spending some time pouring into those kids trying to get them excited and trying
to get them to stay. I think that rapport is extremely important and that rapport, that
relationship with that teacher is what [makes] to want them to stay and is important.
Counselor 5 highlighted a particular STEM teacher and that “She is patient and she, you know, is
understanding and nobody is dumb in her class and nobody feels dumb in her class and that's
something that I hear from students that ‘I love this Silver Star ISD teacher.’”
Counselors noted that teacher’s demonstration of passion about the subject along with
being genuine with a display of respect and love toward students are important to learning.
Counselor 8 highlighted that students work harder when they feel that their teachers have
genuine interest:
The students usually enjoy the classroom better when they know their teacher respects
them and loves them. Then they respect and love their teacher. Then the performance in
110

the classroom is better because they don't want to disappoint that teacher. They want to
do better. They want to do better work to make that teacher proud of them.
Counselors also indicated that challenging students with the right rigor was also effective to
spark interest and engagement. Counselor 9 indicated that not only passion for the subject was
important and specifically referenced one STEM teacher’s techniques as “She challenges you to
be a better student. She challenges you to work harder but she teaches in a way that is passionate
and inspires to go deeper.”
STEM teachers reinforced that they work to learn the student’s interests. STEM Teacher
1 expressed how they build rapport by seeking answers to from students about “’What are some
activities you're involved in?’ “What's your belief system?’. You know, we try to incorporate
some of their own interests as well as their college or post- secondary goals into the class itself.”
STEM Teacher 1 shared that student interests “changes year to year to year, so we do have a
[Four year] portfolio building where they can kind of express themselves.”
STEM Teacher 2 reported that, during rapport building efforts, they get very specific as:
I want to know what you're into and even more than that, like what music do you listen
to. I’m going to tell you what music I listen to. I play my music in class. You know we're
going to talk about “Have you seen this movie? What do you think about that movie?”
Specific to female students, STEM Teacher 2 continued:
Creating that right environment that caters to the female students, you know, [must
include] making sure that you have the right level of challenge where it's not so hard that,
they're like, “I just feel defeated” but it's not like this is a blow off. “I’m done. What I do
now?” They're bored.
111

Counselors indicated that a student’s STEM interest and subsequent enrollment can be
based upon the teacher and the teacher’s reputation, yet students course enrollment decisions can
also be based upon role models.
Student Interest in STEM Can Be Sparked by Hands On, Real World Projects
Counselors and STEM teachers shared that student’s express interest in hands-on, real-
world projects like robotics and gain enjoyment learning from watching videos, as well as
observing celebrity influencers. The interest expressed contrasted with the traditional style of
teacher standing in front of the class delivering instruction through a lecture. For K–12
secondary counselors, they perceived that most of the student interest in STEM is in math and
science subjects and to a lesser extent computer science courses.
Students were discussed as liking hands-on, real-world projects. Counselor 8 highlighted that
students like “the hands-on part.” STEM Teacher 2 shared that students can be more motivated
to learn through the engagement of project-based learning as they:
Have a lot more thinking involved, you know versus feeling, you know it's the right and
left brain ‘kind of thing’, and I think a lot, especially females, they tend to find creativity,
to be easier right, and I think one of the things that I do to offset, that is, we definitely
like that's the project thing. Let's be creative. Let's use both sides of our brain. Let's use
our math brain to help our creative brain flourish. If you just give [students] equations,
they're going to be bored. I think, giving the challenges is a big motivator to a teenager.
Counselor 7 added that students like robotics club and expounded that “Real life projects really
get their interest. To see how it really applies to the real world.” Counselor 6 indicated the course
selection “Decisions are made by how fun does the class look” as Counselor 1 noted that
students are very interested in “how-to videos or have a [science] fair.” STEM Teacher 1 and
112

Counselor 10 offered that students “interest is mostly in math and science, but math is the big
one, but they're really interested in the engineering classes, or we offer computer science
program and fundamentals one and two. They love those classes.”
STEM Teacher 1 indicated that students are very aware of STEM related current events and that
the “space industry is exploding” and is highlighted “that if a kid would be interested in
electronics, then the aerospace sector just opened up.” Counselor 5 indicated the student’s
interest in STEM can be affected by “influencers” and students follow the activities and pursuits
of well-known people like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos.
Students were perceived to express interest in hands on, real world projects to their
counselors and STEM teachers yet also experienced many influences from role models and that
can drive their behavior and decisions to enroll in STEM or not.
Role Models’ Inspire Students to Pursue STEM Course Enrollment
Counselors shared that STEM teachers in SSISD positively influence students by serving
as role models providing adult examples that can inspire students to emulate them by pursuing
STEM courses. 11 out of 11 of the SSISD counselors indicated that math, science, and computer
science teachers were role models, especially female STEM teachers, that exhibit great
confidence, and this can lead to increased student motivation and learning.
Counselor 1 voiced that teachers are role models and works to highlight to students by asking:
The teachers on Teacher Talk Day to share their college experience. [Share] what was
their major. Share information about their college or university. And [to] talk about their
major and you know the pros and cons and you know hardships, or you know the
celebrations of going on that route. So, I think the teachers are a huge role model for the
kids and learning.
113

Counselor 6, 8 and 10 all responded with nearly the same comment and that is that STEM role
models are “definitely our math and science teachers” while Counselor 11 voiced that students
“look at our teachers as being valuable role models.”
Further, “we have a lot of male and female teachers that are very influential on our students” yet
more emphatically emphasized that “our calculus teacher is a woman and I think it's great for
students to see.” In a similar way to Counselor 11, Counselor 2 emphasized that “all three of our
Project Lead the Way (PLTW) teachers are females.” Counselor 4 added that “we have female
engineering teachers and I think girls being exposed to female role models is always good.”
Counselor 7 added that “our science teachers, three out of six are females” and reinforced that
teachers are great role models with:
I think that's pretty important because they are strong females. They are good role models
and typically the students really like our teachers. And math we have one, two, four, five,
eight [STEM teachers] that are females. And then, our CTE teachers. I think those
teachers are our math teachers again are very engaging. They've won several awards.
Counselor 3 voiced that “I definitely think that there's females encouraging females. I also think
that having female instructors as well as having clubs and organizations that are female
supported as well is definitely a positive influencer [for females].” Counselor 5 shared that “the
kids love to stop and have conversations with her in the hallway” when highlighting one STEM
teacher. Counselor 9 separately added that “I feel like there's a gender attraction here because
young women and women of color can see other women and women of color and diversity.”
STEM teachers shared that role models, from outside the school, positively influence
students by providing examples that inspire students to pursue STEM. STEM Teacher 1
indicated that prior to COVID-19, counselors, and STEM teachers “try to bring in professionals
114

and female professionals” and that students “Have had direct contact with professionals [in
STEM].” STEM Teacher 3 shared that “we had a [female] guest speaker. She works at NASA.
She worked on the Space Station, Space X and other projects.” STEM Teacher 3 highlighted a
“technology shadowing” program provided access to role models at a global oil and gas
technology company. Counselor 6 indicated that “last year we did not have opportunities for
people to come in and speak to the kids and help to inspire them in their fields of study.” In
contrast and to overcome the limitations of the COVID-19 pandemic, Counselor 11 conveyed
that students would “Zoom with some different people who are in that field and that were
women” and then have a counseling session discussing course selection and reference “different
women, here's what they do and here's what their day looks like.”
While counselors shared that STEM teachers in SSISD positively influence students by
serving as role models and providing adult examples that can inspire students to emulate them by
pursuing STEM courses, the physical environment in the classroom is also an influence.
Physical Environment Can Influence Student Course Enrollment Choices
When answering other interview questions on influences that affect student choices to
pursue STEM courses not, one counselor and two STEM teachers highlighted that the physical
environment of their school buildings can influence student course enrollment choices. In the
subset of counselors and STEM teachers’ that commented on the physical environment as an
influence on students, there was already an understanding that the physical environment can be
an influence on students, especially female students. Further, what was also highlighted was a
lack of parity in the classroom that is felt by secondary female students and can detract from
their sense of belonging.
115

Counselor 3 implied that there is purposeful effort in placing visuals in the schools to promote
themes around college, career (including STEM) and military readiness with the comment that
“It's in our building as part of the decorations.”
In response to the question about whether the physical environment can influence student’s
decisions to enrollment in STEM or not, STEM Teacher 2 expressed:
The posters on my wall are Internet memes and that I thought were funny. You know, I
mean, I have one right here. We've got our big high school banner behind me. I think
that's another thing too [that symbology in the classroom helps] in having energy and
pride in your [computer science] program.
STEM Teacher 2 also mentioned that “You walk into a room and if you're the only female,
you're automatically uncomfortable. You're automatically apprehensive.”
STEM Teacher 3 emphasized her perception that the atmosphere in the classroom matters to
female students when there are:
A couple of a female students [in STEM class], I think it's very hard for female students
to feel equity in the numbers because, when a bunch of boys get together, the feeling of a
class is very different. It can be very hard to be that female student, that's the one or two
in that class. I’ve had to deal with that with one of my students who did end up dropping
engineering just because of the group of boys in there. It wasn't that the teacher wasn't
doing her job, but it was a bunch of athletes and it just had a different feel. I think that is
something to really keep in mind, because it's not so much the subject material that was
intimidating, but it was the atmosphere.
STEM Teacher 2 also mentioned that “the other thing is the culture and the climate of the
classroom environment. You know just making sure that they feel welcome. That there's a social
116

aspect. That it's a comfortable and welcoming setting for them”. In contrast to Counselor 3 and
STEM Teachers 2 and 3, Counselor 4 highlighted that academic rigor where students feel both
success and challenge is important with the following:
I mean very rarely [it’s physical environment], I think it is a sense of belonging more on
the academic side, you know, the ability to do well in the class. It is not so much feeling
like they weren't accepted in the environment, it was just being able to keep up with the
[academic] work.
While educators may understand that the physical environment can be an influence on
students, especially female students, counselors, and STEM teachers also highlighted that a lack
of parity in the classroom can have a physical feel by secondary students and can detract from
their sense of belonging coupled with what may perceived to be influences outside the classroom
in the media.
Media Can Influence Students Choice to Pursue STEM or Not
Counselors and STEM teachers shared that media influence on students might be a factor
in their decision to take a class, pursue a STEM education, career pathway or not. Interview
responses indicated that students can influenced by various forms of media where they might
learn by observing, imitating, and influence a student’s individual thoughts, attitudes, and
behavior. Counselor 8 shared that “I think the media is newspapers, research, TV, movies, I think
all of that, in terms of media, in spite of the fact that there is has been in my experience, more
and more.” Separately, Counselor 4 nearly aligned with Counselor 1 in that students are
influenced by “Peers, media, and social media.” “It's everywhere” voiced Counselor 1 when
describing social media influence yet. In terms of learning about colleges, Counselor 3 offered
that “they watch platforms to learn about colleges.” In contrast STEM Teacher 3 indicated that “I
117

can't think of any.” Counselor 5 shared that “You know, that's the social media that we all hate
them to pay attention to. But they're big influences in their lives.” Counselor 7 highlighted that
students share that “socially, you want to look cool, and you want to look good on social media.”
STEM Teacher 1 emphasized that popular culture surrounds and influences her classroom:
Yeah. So, you know the students always know what is happening with pop culture icons.
What they are doing. What they are wearing. What the online, social media influencers
up to. What the movie actors and actresses are doing. Their like “Oh, did you see that
someone?” and “So did that you know?” They'll talk about that in class a lot. Like a
movie and media stars.
STEM Teacher 2 reinforced the observation that social media influences students “all the time.”
While Counselor 10 articulated that “I haven't had a lot of students base their career path on
something that they've seen [in media]”, Counselor 11 observed the opposite with the following:
Definitely things in the media there and just things that are popular. I mean there's a lot of
students that say, right now, I want to be a video game designer so that pushes them into
or leads them into the computer science and coding pathway.
Counselors and STEM teachers shared that media influence on students can be a factor in
their decision to take a STEM, it can be challenging to know what influences exist that affects
their course enrollment decisions because students do not always express their feelings.
Counselors and Teachers Perceive that Students Do Not Express Feelings About STEM
Regarding counselors and teachers’ perceptions about students sharing how they feel
about STEM courses, nine of the eleven counselors indicated their perceptions that students do
share their feelings while three counselors offered that they had not heard students voice their
feelings about STEM at all. At times, in counseling sessions, students express their negative
118

feelings by expressing their fear of not doing well in STEM classes, whether they perceive a
course to be hard and challenging, and if they are struggling in the class and their sense of
belonging concerns. STEM Teacher 1 expressed that “Sometimes kids really struggle. They're
not used to failure” and continued on by describing their conversations where student share “this
course is tough.” Counselor 10 reported her perception that “I have a lot of students who are
afraid of math. They're just scared of math and science and so there's that fear.” Regarding
STEM courses being hard and students challenged, Counselor 4 expressed that “I’ve had some
students talk to me about engineering being difficult and I think I knew one instance of a
[female] student who dropped out” as Counselor 5 stated “Oh yeah, like if they think they're hard
and I barely hear they're too easy.” Counselor 11 indicated that “Sometimes I’ll ask, is this class
hard? That's a hard question, that's a difficult question to answer because it really has to do with
the student, their talent and their work ethic.” In response to student expressions of their feelings
about STEM courses, Counselor 6 shared that the only time she hears students sharing their
feelings was when “they were really struggling in a class” while STEM Teacher 1 communicated
that “Sometimes kids really struggle as they're not used to failure” and students verbalize that
“this course is tough like.” Further, “They just feel like it's their first advanced class and they
really didn't know what the scope of an advanced class.”
Counselors and STEM teachers indicated that students share their feelings about a lack of
sense of belonging in STEM classes. Counselor 1 described that students did not “share interests
or dis-interests specifically about STEM courses” but do express a sense of not feeling accepted
by expressing that “they didn't feel like they belong in the class.” Further, female students
expressed their phobia about being alone or “the only girl in the [STEM] class.” With specific
reference to female secondary students, STEM Teacher 1 shared that "They won't express it, but
119

they try to kind of shy back in the background.” Counselor 7 conveyed that “I have had some
girls share how they feel about the STEM courses.” Counselor 8 indicated that female students
share their feelings about a lack of a sense of belonging with the following:
Sometimes they say I don't want to be the only girl in there. Sometimes they say they
think there'll be too hard. Just that's a common misconception, but they do think that.
They literally say I don't want to be the only girl in there and giggle.
Counselors and STEM teachers share that students do share how they feel about STEM
courses through expressions of fear, their struggles in and sense of belonging concerns.
Participants Perceive a Student’s Sense of Belonging to Be Important in STEM Persistence
Counselors and STEM teachers indicated that students need to be an accepted member of
a group and be an important part of something greater than themselves. Nine of the eleven
counselors shared that a student having a sense of belonging is important while the remaining
two counselors indicated that they had not heard or rarely hear from students that a sense of
belonging was important to them. Three out of the three STEM teachers indicated that belonging
to a group along with its associated identity is important to students. Counselors 3 and 6 both
shared that a “sense of belonging is huge for high school students.” Indifferent of a student being
a male or female, Counselor 1 share “I think it's huge because they need to feel like they belong.”
While Counselor 11 voiced that a being a part of something greater than themselves was “Like,
the number one fear. They want to be like everybody else and have their own little group.”
Counselor 5 pointed out that “I get that from boys and girls, that I’m not smart enough. “I’m
done”, you know, so they have that. You know already that misconception in their head in their
brain that says, “I’m not good enough [to belong].”
120

Of the nine counselors and three STEM teachers that shared that a student having a sense
of belonging was important, they also shared that a sense of belonging was more important to
female students. Counselor 2 communicated her belief that a sense of belonging “Is maybe the
most important thing. I think that, especially in teenagers, male or female, that is super
important. But I think for girls [a sense of belonging] that is even more important.” Counselor 11
described counseling sessions with female students where “I’ve spoken with [females] that are in
in STEM where they do not feel like they belong there.” Counselor 7 described conversations
with female students as “’I felt very alone’ and “they don't feel like they belong and it's still, like
it or not, it's still a good old boys’ network and it is.” STEM Teacher 1 echoed the female
student’s sense of belonging is important by sharing the following:
From my female students, when there are low female numbers, that really makes them
feel like a “Fish out of water.” Girls are good, while boys are very loud and stinky, and
that's not them and so, like you know it's different. I do hear that often. They feel like a
“Fish out of water.”
STEM Teacher 1 also shared:
That a female in a class can produce the same quality product as a male, but not feel as
good about it. So, we've talked about that [sense of belonging feeling] as a team. We
incorporate that and that tries to help support a student feeling like she belongs in these
courses and continues down the [STEM] pathway.
STEM Teacher 3 articulated that female students could be more comfortable and have a stronger
sense of belonging “If girls had more of an equivalent to the [boys] football [team] camaraderie.
Because it's very strong.”
121

Counselors and STEM teachers indicated that students needed to have a sense of
belonging and be an accepted as a member of a group and something greater than themselves
which is further amplified when it comes to their interest in matriculating into a
college/university or even the workforce.
Participants Perceive That Grade Point Average Influences Student STEM Enrollment
A finding that emerged was that student's course selection maybe influenced by their
concern that their class grades resulting in grade point average (GPA) and class rank can affect
their college admission at a selective college or even be a hiring consideration when getting a job
after high school. Counselors and STEM teachers indicated that students consider their past
grades results and what future grades might and how that might affect their GPA when making
decisions about future course enrollment.
Seven of eleven counselors and three of the three STEM teachers commented that an
influence in course selection is GPA and referred to the importance of the “GPA game”. Students
often make course selections in the more rigorous Advanced Placement (AP) and Dual Credit
(DC) courses to receive an additional fifteen quality points. The additional quality points for the
advanced course completion weights their grade point average and can improve their class
ranking. Further, when applying for colleges, or seeking employment after high school
graduation, students are aware that their GPA could affect their competitiveness when compared
against other candidates. Counselor 11 offered that “I have a lot of students who are very focused
on their GPA and the benefit of some of the STEM courses, is that they offer quality points.” She
continued to share that “Some students are very much seeking out our STEM electives for the
purpose to boost their GPA and so that leads students, both female and male, to select the entry
level of certain STEM courses [for GPA reasons].” When discussing reasons for STEM course
122

selection, Counselor 2 mentioned that “A lot of [the motivation] has to do with GPA. That is a
huge motivating factor. There's a lot of kids playing that ‘GPA game.’” Counselor 3 reinforced
Counselor 2’s response in that a lot of student’s decisions are based on “Playing the game for
GPA, they get 15 extra points, definitely, for GPA reasons.” While Counselor 1 shared that
students often voice their concerns about “What if I don't do well, that [bad] grade is on a
transcript”, Counselor 2 described certain students’ motivation for taking STEM classes is based
on class rank aspirations as:
A lot of kids sign up for it, honestly, that aren't even interested in engineering because
they're just looking for [quality points]. STEM is a way to get some quality points, but at
the same time that can also be a little intimidating to a student who is in “on level”
classes right making good grades.
Finally, STEM Teacher 1’s answer echoed that classes that can help achieve a high class rank
influences future STEM course enrollment with the following:
Sometimes it is their quality points attached to the class and because that affects their
class rank and, ultimately, if they will meet that top 6% to 10% of their class because that
affects their college automatic admissions. So sometimes it’s quality points.
Students consider their past and potential course grades and how that might affect their
class rank when making decisions about future course enrollment and they also consider the
amount of homework that they may have and how that would impact their lifestyle.
Homework Workload Influence
High school students concern over the number of in-class assignments, tests and any
homework were perceived by participants to impact their decision to choose STEM or not. When
asked what might influence student’s decision making, three counselors and one STEM teacher
123

shared that the burden of homework connected to the rigor of the course influences a student’s
decision for future course enrollments. While building study skills and reviewing concepts
learned in class is important in K–12 secondary school, students are concerned about the
homework commitment (Terada, 2018). Counselor 7 offered that the amount of “homework”
influences students as they perceive the work to be stressful and disruptive to their personal time.
Counselor 2 noted that students “Hear stories about other [STEM] disciplines that have an hour
to work eight hours of homework at night.” STEM Teacher 3 expressed that “I have lots of kids
worried about homework … so, a lot of them don't want homework. They're worried about the
workload. I have lots of kids that ask me about that when evaluating take my class or not.”
According to counselors and STEM teachers, K–12 secondary students are concerned
over the number of in-class assignments, tests and any homework and if homework exceeds their
expectations they will choose not to enroll in STEM.
Barriers Preventing Student STEM Enrollment
Counselors and STEM teachers highlighted that students experienced challenges in
aligning schedules to meet their graduation course requirements and that can be a blocker for
taking advanced STEM courses. In response to the question about any circumstances that are
preventing students from enrolling in STEM classes, eight of the fourteen interviewed indicated
that the high school four-year plan and ability to fit STEM or electives in the schedule is
challenging due to mandatory graduation requirement courses. While the remaining three
Counselors 3, 4 and 11 indicated “I don’t think so”, the scheduling challenge arose for most
counselors and indicated that it could lead to lower enrollment in advanced STEM courses.
Counselor 1 highlighted that the scheduling of the “the four-year plan” often prevents students
from enrolling in STEM classes due to what Counselor 10 pointed out that “our program is pretty
124

structured and so students don't have a whole lot of classes [outside graduation requirements].”
Counselor 2 echoed that a student must focus on the core classes and trades off occur as it
“comes down to being able to fit everything in their schedule.”
Counselors and STEM teachers also mentioned that scheduling challenges also arose
when trying to align schedules that would include students Fine Arts and Athletics
extracurricular participation. These scheduling issues further challenges a student’s ability to
enroll in STEM courses. Counselor 2 articulated that “You can't really be in Drill Team and
Soccer [and STEM], there's not enough time.” In reference to extracurriculars, Counselor 6
conveyed that “It's more of a scheduling piece of being able to get them into the classes
especially if they have too many higher-level classes. How do you fit them all in?” Counselor 7
expressed that there are “scheduling conflicts with Girls Athletics, Boys Athletics or Fine Arts.”
Regarding schedule challenges for secondary female students, STEM Teacher 3 highlighted that
Fine Arts classes occur at the same class period as computer science in that “Maybe cheer? There
might be another dance or cheer that's during my class period that conflicts.”
Counselors and STEM teachers also mentioned that physical space was a challenge when
trying to meet student interest and aligning schedules. Counselor 7 mentioned that during
COVID-19, “if a student wanted to take AutoCAD or Computer-Aided Design and they were
virtual that was not offered” as SSISD could not offer because the curriculum and instruction
design required teachers and students to be physically present or face-to-face. While the inability
to meet due to COVID-19 was an issue preventing enrollment in AutoCAD, STEM Teacher 1
indicated that the number of available computers as well as preferred student to teacher ratios
was an issue that can prevent student enrollment as “We max out at 24 [students] per class just
due to computer [availability] so somewhere between 22 and 24 per class period. And there are
125

six class periods.” STEM Teacher 2 reinforced the capacity challenge as “28. That's my seats. I
only have 28 computers.”
Counselors and STEM teachers indicated that a four-year plan to meet graduation
requirements can create scheduling challenges for a student resulting in them not taking
advanced STEM courses.
STEM Extracurricular Club
In SSISD, student extracurricular activities have been centered around the relatively new
EARS Club. The goal of the EARS Club is to help student members build simple robots using
programmable circuit boards with motors and sensors as well as compete against other high
schools in robotics and engineering competitions (Vector, n.d.). When asked about whether they
were aware of any extracurricular activities that are STEM related, nine of the eleven counselors
and the three STEM teachers voiced that each junior high school and high school in SSISD had a
Robotics Club or EARS Club. While Counselor 1 shared that the EARS Club was an
extracurricular club, she also highlighted that most students’ schedules are consumed by
obtaining credit toward graduation requirements as well as athletics and fine arts credit and
participation after school and “may prohibit them from doing a STEM extracurricular.”
Counselor 2 reported that it is very hard to be in the EARS Club and “To be in athletics, band
and choir and do all of the extracurriculars is hard. When you get to high school you really have
to start to narrow down [due to schedule constraints].” In reference to students that are in the
extracurricular EARS, Counselor 7 answered that certain students are attracted with:
I would say that the kids are a very specific population because you have all your other
extracurricular activities that you're also trying to fit in. So those kids are 100% focused
126

on [robotics]. You cannot be in dance. You cannot be in athletics. You cannot be in band.
You have to only have that as your thing.
Counselor 7 indicated that “We have a STEM club” and shared that “It’s a small percentage of
kids that are in in robotics. They typically are not very well rounded because they don't have that
other thing and a lot of times that's an outside of school extracurricular activity.”
Counselors and STEM teachers indicated that secondary students not only could
participate in the STEM related extracurricular activities of the University Interscholastic League
(UIL). and the Robotics Club, but they also can participate in learning and development
opportunities offered outside of school. Counselor 5 indicated that the secondary students
participate in STEM related extracurricular activities of “Space Camp. There's Flight Camp.
There's Oceanography Camp and there's all sorts of camps that students can go to over the
summer.” Counselor 4 highlighted the “Silver Star ISD STEAM Conference” which was a half-
day conference designed to expose SSISD students in grades three through eight to science,
technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) through hands-on activities for
students to learn about all disciplines of STEAM as well as exposure to colleges, careers with
mentoring opportunities with college students, professors, and professionals. STEM Teacher 2
shared that 38 of his students competed on a Saturday in the annual “‘CodeWars’, which is a
high school student coding competition.” STEM Teacher 1 emphasized "Yes, so we've got the
Society of Women Engineers (SWE). It's a society of women in engineering chapter that tries to
support student female enrollment and retain talent [in STEM].” Each year SWE produces the
“Introduce a Girl to Engineering Event (IAGTE)” which is all day event providing interactive
workshops to expose girls to different disciplines of engineering (SWE, n.d.).
127

Female Students Are Underrepresented in STEM Extracurricular Activities
A finding that did emerge when probing for counselor and STEM teacher awareness of
any extracurricular activities that are STEM related was that the only local activity mentioned
was robotics and female students have been underrepresented. Four counselors and one STEM
teacher highlighted that female student’s interest and participation in STEM extracurricular
activities is lower compared to male peers. While Counselor 10 shared in an answer to a previous
question that gender stereotype beliefs do exist, she highlighted that “We do push our students to
join [extracurricular interests]” yet “our robotics club is very male heavy.” Counselor 1 also
offered that “Several girls are getting into our robotics program, that was new a couple years ago,
and they were so fired up and so passionate about it. Yet there are few.” Counselor 7 stated that
“We have robotics club, but nothing is specifically geared towards females.
While counselors and STEM teachers highlighted that students participate in UIL, EARS
Clubs and outside of school extracurricular activities, female students’ participation is lower
compared to male students.
Summary
The purpose of the interviews was to gather information from SSISD secondary
counselors and STEM teachers about their perceptions of secondary female students in STEM
and was focused on what they describe about why some females enroll in STEM and why some
do not.
The 14 counselors and STEM teachers, that engage daily with students in classrooms,
offered their perspective and helped the researcher gain a better understanding of the challenges
and benefits of students taking STEM courses or not. The data collection and analysis of the data
from this research study resulted in key findings about the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of
128

the U.S. K–12 secondary female students, their environment, and the resulting behaviors. While
all findings were substantiated through the analysis of the perceptions of secondary education
counselors and STEM teachers and how they perceive their role in having female students enroll
in STEM courses, the learnings highlighted the challenges and benefits for K–12 secondary
students in taking STEM courses in middle and high school, especially for female students.
The findings showed that while counselors and STEM teachers are heavily invested in
guiding and teaching students, they shared their perception of student’s beliefs that pursuit of
STEM or not is formed well before students are at the secondary level. Subsequently, their
perceptions of a lack of student gender parity in advanced STEM courses result from decisions
that secondary female students make about STEM based upon the many influences of parents,
peers, teachers, role models, a sense of belonging, scheduling issues, and class rank concerns.
Based upon the participants perceptions of secondary female students, these influences and their
resulting behaviors lead to a lack of gender parity in advanced STEM courses in SSISD.

129

Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of the study was to gather information from secondary counselors and
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers about secondary female
students in STEM and was focused on what they described about why some female students
enroll in STEM and why some do not. The intent was to better understand why female students
are underrepresented in STEM course participation. Considering that the U.S. Census Bureau
(2018) estimated that women make up 51% of the nation’s population yet the EEOC (2016)
indicated that only 36% are employed in U.S. technology occupations and that the BLS (2018)
forecast for technology occupations are expected to grow faster than other occupations from
2018 to 2028 is a concern for gender parity. Further, this underrepresentation of females in a
high job growth area couple with the College Board (2019) view that only 25% of females took
AP Computer Science A yet make up 56% of all AP test-takers needs to be a concern for SSISD
school board members and administration. The expected outcome of the study was to provide
usable information for SSISD board members to make informed decisions on policy to drive
change that results in increased female enrollment in secondary STEM courses in SSISD
addressing gender equity and keeps pace with technology jobs growth.
The research questions that guided the analysis of the dynamic and reciprocal interaction
of the U.S. K–12 secondary female students, their environment, and behaviors were:
1. How do middle and high school counselors and STEM teachers perceive their role in
having female students enroll in STEM courses?
2. In what ways are the challenges and benefits of taking STEM courses in middle and high
school schools for female students described by middle and high school counselors and
STEM teachers?
130

For this study, I was the researcher and key instrument that selected the schools and
recruited the interview participants. I captured the fourteen SSISD counselors and STEM teacher
perceptions through a virtual one to one interview format where the participants were on
SSISD’s secondary school campuses while I connected via Zoom from off campus. The
interviews utilized a semi-structured approach guided by an interview protocol for consistency
with the interview questions aligned to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton
2015). Further, I utilized Zoom’s transcription software to transcribe the interviews and I edited
the transcription document for each interview while listening and watching the interview
playbacks (Bogdan & Biklin, 2007). The data for this study included the interview transcripts as
well as my research and my reflection notes. This final chapter includes a discussion of findings,
recommendations for practice, limitations and delimitations, and recommendations for future
research.
Discussion of Findings
The findings showed that while counselors and STEM teachers were heavily invested in
guiding and teaching students, they shared their perception of student’s beliefs to pursue of
STEM or not was formed well before students arrive to the secondary level. Subsequently, their
perceptions of a lack of student gender parity in advanced STEM courses resulted from decisions
that secondary female students make about STEM based upon the many influences of parents,
peers, teachers, role models, a sense of belonging, scheduling issues, and class rank concerns.
Based upon the counselors and STEM teachers’ perceptions of secondary female students, these
influences and their resulting behaviors have led to a lack of gender parity in advanced STEM
courses in SSISD.
131

Three broad themes from the perceptions of counselors and STEM teachers about why
some female students enroll in STEM and why some do not enroll emerged from the data. The
first theme to emerge was that greater awareness of the challenges and benefits of STEM for
female students needs to occur before students advance to junior high school and high school.
The second theme was that student course enrollment decisions are influenced by input from
their parents, peers, teachers, and role models. The third theme was that school structure barriers
exist that prevent students from enrolling in advanced STEM courses. All findings aligned well
with existing literature and this study’s conceptual framework. A discussion of each is detailed in
this section.
Theme 1: Awareness of the Challenges and Benefits of STEM Needs to Occur Before
Reaching the K–12 Secondary Level
In this study, social cognitive theory provided a lens to view student enrollment choices
through the perceptions of counselors and STEM teachers about the dynamic and reciprocal
interaction of the female students, their environment, and resulting behaviors (Wood & Bandura,
1989). Counselors and STEM teachers shared that there are many influences that form a
student’s belief as to whether they can be successful in STEM and that awareness of the
challenges and benefits of taking STEM courses is needed earlier in the education pipeline for
female students. Consistent with the application of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, a
finding that emerged from the counselors and STEM teacher’s perceptions shared and was that
by the time a student reaches high school, student’s beliefs about STEM are appreciably
developed based upon the interaction and influences from parents, peers, teachers, and role
models that may or may not create a sense of belonging in their environment and this impacts
their course enrollment behavior. In the case of female students, they highlighted that a female
132

students’ beliefs about the attributes needed for STEM success and roles in life emerge in their
early childhood. The participants validated that cultural messages from influencers associate
greater STEM ability with males more than females (NSF, 2003). Dasgupta & Stout (2014) and
Simpkins et al. (2005) highlighted that children learn early in their lives about gender differences
as these beliefs manifest through their parents and social groups expression of career or
occupation interests. While Eccles (1994) pointed out that these views of gender-based
occupation have been developed throughout the socialization and history of women and men,
counselors and STEM teachers believe that a means to overcome this gender bias is through
awareness that gender bias exists. Counselors and STEM teachers validated Dasgupta and Stout
(2014) and Dee and Gershenson’s (2017) view that the “leaky pipeline” forms early in a female
student’s life partially caused by children’s awareness of gender differences through math and
science related stereotypes and their subsequent internalization of stereotypes.
As it relates to their role, this experienced set of counselors shared that their role was to
help students solve problems and help them navigate their four-year high school courses
selection plan in effort to become college, career and military ready. A finding that emerged
through the course of the interviews was an inconsistency on the frequency that K–12 secondary
counselors have met with middle and high school students. The inconsistency centered around a
lack of time to fully meet their role objectives and offer counseling to every student. While a
response that the researcher was expecting when asking about frequency was counselor concern
for having a large student to counselor ratio. The ratio only arose in one instance with Counselor
2 mention that “I have a full caseload. So, right now it's about 555 [students] and growing and is
expected to be close to 575 [students]. While counselor to student ratios in the U.S. are wide
ranging, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recommends a maximum ratio of
133

one counselor for every 250 students while the Texas Counseling Association, Texas Association
of Secondary School Principals, and the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors
Association recommend ratios of one counselor for every 350 students (TEA, 2020). Implied in
this feedback was that SSISD counselors may not be meeting their own expectations of fulfilling
their responsibilities and can affect their abilities to focus on specific topics like student under
representation in STEM. Additionally, while counselors worked to meet their assigned role
objectives, they shared that they spend a lot of unplanned time on student social and emotional
issues that deviated from their goal of meeting with students at least once a year for individual
planning. While there were not any interview questions related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19)
pandemic, a finding that emerged centered around the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on
counselors and STEM teacher’s inability to access students due to being remote and
asynchronous learning. In all three findings around frequency, student to counselor ratio and
unplanned time for student social and emotional issues, the research concluded that counselors
are not able to counsel all their assigned students. The implications for these findings for female
students are that a lack of time by counselors as well as lack of access by the student was
determined to be a factor that could lead to the underrepresentation in SSISD STEM course
enrollment.
While these education professionals had mixed perceptions of whether gender stereotype
beliefs about STEM exist or not by the students, a finding that emerged in counselors’ responses
was an indifference about a student’s gender when it came completing their primary purpose of
ensuring students have four-year course plan and are graduation ready. While Fiske (1993)
highlighted that a gender stereotype is another person’s belief about other individuals, their
behaviors and their competence based on their group membership, the finding indicated that
134

counselors could have a gender-neutral position when it comes to advising on student’s course
enrollment. While a majority of K–12 secondary counselors and STEM teachers perceived that
overall female student enrollment in STEM courses was growing, they perceived enrollment to
be equal in the core STEM subjects for high school graduation yet indicated that have observed
gender disparity through lower female enrollment in advanced STEM courses. Despite their
observation of gender disparity in advanced STEM courses, the researcher’s conclusion is that
counselors support student choices for course enrollment despite their recognition that female
students are underrepresented in STEM.
Theme 2: Student Course Enrollment Decisions Are Influenced by Parents, Peers,
Teachers, Role Models and Whether Courses Have a Reputation of Being Problem Based
Social cognitive theory was appropriate to examine the problem of the
underrepresentation of female because it allowed for an analysis of counselors and STEM
teachers perceptions of the interactions of female students and how their home and school
environment influences their course selection behavior. According to Bandura’s (1986)
reciprocal determinism, human behavior and their environment are constantly interacting and
influencing one another. In this study, reciprocal determinism helped the researcher to better
understand that a female student can act as both an agent for change and a responder to change.
An aspect of social cognitive theory is that humans learn not only through their own experiences,
but also by listening to and observing the actions of others (Glanz, 2001). For females, the
expectations of gender-based roles develop from their socialization practices among peers in
their home and school environment (Eccles, 2011). Counselors and STEM teachers validated that
a student’s environment, the examples of different parent, peer and teacher role models and
social bias in reinforcements of their environment were determinants of their course selection
135

behavior. Participants indicated that the influences on student course enrollments are impacted
the most by student’s parents followed by the influences of peers, teachers, and to role models.
Bandura (1997) highlighted that students can develop self-efficacy beliefs because of
social persuasions and that persuaders like parents, peers, and teachers must be credible to
develop a belief that one can be successful or not. In the case of STEM, self-efficacy is the
expectation that a student has about their capabilities to perform tasks at a certain level (Bandura,
2012). Consistent with Dasgupta and Stout (2014), counselor and STEM teachers shared parents
were important to female students’ perceptions of STEM and can be heavy influencers of their
student’s academic interests and vocational options. Participants also validated that peers’
positive or negative influence is an important element in forming a student’s sense of belonging
and important to understand as it forms female students’ perception about their potential or
future experiences in STEM. Specifically, interactions with peers about STEM and their
interpersonal relationships does feed a student’s sense of belonging and the student’s subsequent
decision to pursue STEM courses or not (Johnson, 2012). Counselors validated the Russell and
Atwater (2005) view that teachers had the largest impact on student’s pursuit in science and math
courses. Consistent with the literature review of Margot and Kettler (2019), a finding that
emerged from the two female STEM teachers was that they firmly believed that STEM is for
females and they had conviction that they needed to be additional facilitators of STEM
knowledge sharing for female students. Further, these STEM teachers believed that they had a
role in students’ development of attitudes toward the STEM discipline and that positive
interactions between students and teachers were very important to STEM enrollment. While a
school or classroom’s physical environment as well as social media were highlighted as
136

influencers, they were secondary in consideration compared to parents, peers and teacher
influence on their decision making and subsequent behavior.
A finding that emerged from the data was that counselors and STEM teachers shared that
female students who pursue STEM have a distinct set of personal characteristics from those that
do not pursue STEM. When asked about whether there were any personal characteristics that
they had noticed in female students that persist with STEM courses throughout secondary
education, counselors and STEM teachers expressed their perceptions that female students were
more organized, plan more, are more goal driven, and possess a larger passion for learning when
compared to non-STEM enrolled students. Participants also shared their perception that female
students who persist in STEM have had their interest sparked through exposure to a family
member or to role models. Interviewees validated Riegle-Crumb et al. (2006) findings that
female role models who are successful in STEM stand in contrast to a gender stereotype that
STEM is not for females. Further, most of the counselors echoed that female Career and
Technical Education (CTE) teachers, including STEM teachers, directly and indirectly promote
academic success by serving as in-school role models. A finding that emerged and reinforced the
Master (2014) research is that both female STEM teachers, who serve as role models, created
identity-safe spaces in their classrooms and in extracurricular activities where female students
can learn about how other females have succeeded in STEM.
Counselors and STEM teachers shared that student’s express interest in hands on, real
world projects like robotics and gain enjoyment learning from watching videos, as well as
observing celebrity influencers. Participants shared that the reputation of a class as being hands
on and containing real-life based learning projects matters when it comes to a student's decision
for future enrollment. While the interest expressed contrasted with the traditional style of teacher
137

standing in front of the class delivering instruction through a lecture, they did validate that
SSISD’s implementation of Project Lead the Way (PLTW) hands-on engineering curriculum for
middle and high school students has sparked great interest in STEM in SSISD. They confirmed
the literature review where Bottoms and Anthony (2005) shared that PLTW engages students in
continuous, rigorous mathematics and science curricula with applied technology courses based
on real-world, hands-on projects. For K–12 secondary counselors, they perceived that most of
the student interest in STEM was in math and science subjects and to a lesser extent computer
science course. Their view supported the College Board Advanced Placement (AP) Program
Participation and Performance Data (2019) which indicated that only 25% of females took an AP
Computer Science A exam while 56% of all AP test-takers were female. While computer science
has deep roots in engineering and mathematics, the implications of lower interest from female
students ultimately extends to the lack of women in the U.S. technology industry and is a
contributor to the problem of underrepresentation (Peterfreund et al., 2017).
Theme 3: Systematic Barriers Exist Prevent Students From Enrolling in Advanced STEM
Courses
In alignment with the conceptual framework, a student’s structural influences in their
school experience can lead to a lack of self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997; Borgogni et al.,
2011; Elliot, et al., 2018). In this case, a lack of self-efficacy beliefs can lead to a lack of
representation in K–12 secondary STEM course enrollment. Counselors and STEM teachers
shared that female students desire to pursue STEM can be influenced by a lack of a sense of
belonging, class scheduling issues, and an equity-based class rank concern.
Many counselors and STEM teachers voiced that students do share their feelings about
STEM courses and they also highlighted that concerns expressed to them by female students was
138

a need to be an accepted member of a group and to be an important part of something greater
than themselves. The perception that was shared was that female students’ sense of belonging
and motivation for STEM is positively and negatively influenced by their classmates and friends.
Participant’s responses confirmed Johnson’s (2012) research that female students peers, through
the formative education years of secondary school, are a critical factor in determining an overall
sense of belonging and interest in participation in a STEM educational environment. Counselors
and STEM teachers expressed a similar view to Murphy et al. (2007) in that females expressed a
lower sense of belonging and interest in participation in STEM if there was a lack of gender
parity represented in classroom environment. All three STEM teachers confirmed that female
student’s sense of belonging has been connected to whether there were other females also in their
STEM class (Rainey et al., 2018). Counselors and STEM teachers also validated the Dasgupta
and Stout (2014) research where female students have a higher participation level when there is a
sense of equality in an educational environment driven in part by female gender parity or better.
A finding that emerged was that student's course selection maybe influenced by their
concern that their class grades resulting in grade point average (GPA) and a student’s high
school class rank can affect their college admission at a selective college or even be a hiring
consideration when getting a job after high school. Counselors and STEM teachers indicated that
students consider their past grades results and what future grades might and how that might
affect their GPA when making decisions about future course enrollment. A driver for student
concern and obtaining the highest possible GPA is that students high school class rank is
determined by their GPA. While each interviewee referenced GPA in their responses, counselors
and STEM teachers conveyed that a student’s class rank was the higher order key consideration
for future course enrollment. The reason that students were focused on their GPA and class
139

ranking was that both are important factors for college applications and admission at selective
colleges or even in pursuit of a job after high school. While the University of Texas at Austin
(UT), Office of Admissions, used an individualized, holistic review process to consider each
student’s application, class rank has been the top item listed on their consideration set (UT, n.d.).
While the acceptance rate for the Class of 2023 was 32%, UT automatically accepted applicants
in the top 6% of their Texas high school class further reinforcing the importance of grade point
average. Like UT, Texas A&M University (TAMU) students from Texas high schools only
automatically admitted the top 10% of their Texas high school graduating class (TAMU, 2019;
TAMU, n.d.). Further, 47% of the admitted TAMU Class of 2022 were in the top 25%.
While GPA concerns resonated the most in the data, counselors and STEM teachers also
shared that high school students are sensitive to the number of in-class assignments, tests, and
any high rigor and time-consuming homework. Further, counselors and STEM teachers
highlighted a finding that students experience challenges in aligning schedules to meet their
graduation course requirements as well as participation in extracurricular activities was
challenged. The implications of the challenges described by secondary counselors and STEM
teachers can lead to an inability to take advanced STEM courses and result in the
underrepresentation of all students in STEM.
Recommendations for Practice
This section addresses recommendations on what participants perceived about the factors
surrounding the underrepresentation of female students in K–12 secondary STEM courses. This
study utilized Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) as the conceptual
framework. The study’s findings determined that student enrollment choices are influenced
through the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the female students, their environment, and
140

their behaviors (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Finally, the section concludes with six
recommendations to address the findings identified in Chapter Four. The following six
recommendations should be applied to address key findings:
1. Establish goals to reach gender parity in STEM enrollment.
2. Promote encouragement to family that reinforces existing interest in STEM and can
foster interest.
3. Enhance problem-based learning to further develop student interest in STEM.
4. Increase engagement with successful female role models.
5. Adjust counselor to student ratio and hire intervention counselors to better manage
workload to meet students social and emotional learning needs.
6. Resolve school structure issues preventing STEM enrollment.
Recommendation 1: Establish Goals to Reach Gender Parity in STEM Enrollment
Eight of the 11 counselors and the three STEM teachers indicated that gender parity did
exist yet were many were not clear on the percentage mix between females and males enrolled in
CTE or the subset in STEM specifically. College Board Advanced Placement (AP) Program
Participation and Performance Data (2019) indicates that high school female students are not
pursuing computing as 56% of all AP test-takers were female, while only 25% who took an AP
Computer Science A exam were female. The problem is further amplified in the forecast that
technology occupations are expected to grow faster than other occupations from 2018 to 2028
(BLS, 2018). Female student representation equal to that of males in U.S. K–12 STEM
secondary education can help toward solving for equity and is important to keep pace with
technology jobs that are growing at the fastest rate. The proposed recommendation is to establish
a gender parity goal for STEM and publish reporting on progress toward the STEM enrollment
141

goal including the STEM advanced courses. The frequently published report would be sent to all
internal and external SSISD stakeholders and a recurring meeting by the SSISD school board and
the SSISD superintendent to review progress along with actions and activities to achieve the goal
of gender parity.
Recommendation 2: Promote Encouragement From Family That Reinforces Existing
Interest in STEM and Can Foster Interest
In this study, 14 of 14 interview participants indicated that parent’s encouragement or
discouragement was a factor in why some female students choose STEM courses throughout
their middle and high school education and why some do not. Frome and Eccles (1998) as well
as Leaper et al. (2011) provided evidence that parents are early socializers of their children’s
academic interests and a child’s achievement is higher when parents have positive views of their
children’s math and science abilities. Further, while the relationship to a parent is important to
academic achievement, the conscious and unconscious bias by parents affects a student’s
motivation for STEM topics. Dasgupta and Stout (2014) highlighted that there are development
phases from childhood through adulthood that have distinct obstacles that can negatively
influence female interest, achievement, and persistence in STEM. Further Simpkins et al. (2005)
highlighted that parents are important to female students’ perceptions of STEM and that parents
carrying a gender based occupational view can be heavy influencers of their student’s academic
interests and provide females and males with different treatment regarding their talents,
education, and vocational options. As a reminder, the finding counselors and STEM teachers was
that student’s beliefs to pursue of STEM or not is formed well before students arrive to the
secondary level which points to learnings in the home environment as well as the elementary and
middle school phases. For each development phase of life, the literature suggests that
142

intervention policies and programs that have a positive view of STEM could potentially increase
female students’ perception and participation in STEM (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Dee &
Gershenson, 2017). The recommendation is to develop an outreach program that includes a
parent education component that communicates the utility and importance of STEM, dispels
gender based stereotypes and promotes interest through encouragement of STEM to their
children. As part of this outreach by SSISD, it will be important for SSISD to understand the
ways to be communicating STEM education programming plans with stakeholders that include
district administration, all grade level teachers and staff, families, students, the local community,
as well as higher education and industry partners.
Recommendation 3: Enhance Problem Based Learning to Further Develop Student
Interest in STEM Topics
According to the findings of this study, eight of 10 counselor interview participants as well as
three of three STEM teacher interview participants indicated that problem-based learning sparks
female students’ interest in STEM courses. Renninger and Hidi (2016) argue that interests can
move from being situational and short-term to being personal and long-term and that problem-
based learning can begin building the right scaffolds to keep the interest personal and longer
lasting. Estrada et al. (2018) highlighted that problem-based learning for students, inside and
outside of the classroom promotes the concept that students self-direct their learning experiences
through active investigation of real-word situations and they can problem solve independently
but more often do so in collaborative groups. The first recommendation is to ensure curriculum
development should have strong student participation aspects that includes different and defined
student or learner roles (Tiwari et al., 2016). While SSISD is only utilizing the engineering
programs of Project Lead the Way (PLTW), an aspect of this recommendation is also to assess
143

program investment details for other programs like PLTW gateway and PLTW computer science
that include equipment and supplies, and participation fees and PLTW specific professional
development. The second recommendation is that teacher professional development include
teaching tips that include connecting students to what they already know about the problem,
propose activities and assessments that can further motivate students for more active learning
about the problem and finally presenting solutions and recommendations to solve the problem
(Estrada et al., 2018).
Recommendation 4: Increase Engagement With Successful Female Role Models
The research revealed 11 of the 14 interview participants noted that female role models were
important and had positive effect on female students’ perceptions of STEM. Three out of three
STEM teachers indicated that female students may not select STEM because they cannot see
themselves in STEM based upon perceptions that STEM is for males. Riegle-Crumb et al. (2006)
findings indicated that while historically STEM courses have been stereotyped as male student
domains, female friends and role models who are successful in STEM stand in contrast to
perceptions that STEM is not for females. Stout et al. (2011) found that female students personal
contact with professional women in STEM careers has a positive effect on their self-perceptions
of STEM. Master et al. (2014) highlighted that access to role models can create identity-safe
spaces in schools where they can learn about how other females have succeeded. The proposed
recommendation is to encourage increased engagement of female students with successful
female role models to include female teachers.
144

Recommendation 5: Adjust Counselor to Student Ratio and Hire Intervention Counselors
to Better Manage Workload to Meet Students Social /Emotional Needs
The research revealed that seven of the 11 counselors noted that time and workload
prevented counselors the opportunity to meet the role expectations of meeting students at least
once a year and fulfilling their responsibilities. This finding affects their abilities to focus on
specific topics like student under representation in STEM. Counselor 2 indicated that counselors
had responsibility for as many as 555 students. While counselor to student ratios in the United
States. are wide ranging, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recommends a
maximum ratio of one counselor for every 250 students while the Texas Counseling Association
(TCA), Texas Association of Secondary School Principals (TASSP) and the Texas Elementary
Principals and Supervisors Association (TEPSA) recommend ratios of one counselor for every
350 students (TEA, 2020). The proposed recommendation is to assess the current counselor
workload and adjust the counselor to student ratio in accordance with the recommendations of
TCA, TASSP and TEPSA. A second component of this proposed recommendation is to also hire
licensed professional intervention counselors to better manage social and emotional student
issues. In both, the cost to fund additional the hiring of counselors, that hold at least Masters
college degree in counseling, will need to be considered against other SSISD priorities.
Recommendation 6: Resolve School Structure Issues Preventing Any STEM Enrollment
Eight of fourteen interviewed indicated that the high school four-year plan and ability to fit
STEM or electives in the schedule is challenging. The scheduling challenge was highlighted as
an indicator of lower enrollment in advanced STEM courses. The three STEM teachers that were
interviewed indicated that physical seating capacity for computer science and Project Lead the
Way engineering classes was an issue preventing STEM enrollment for all students. Seven of the
145

eleven counselors and the three STEM teachers indicated that students consider their past grades
results and how future grades might affect their GPA when making decisions about future course
enrollment. The proposed recommendation is for the current master schedule to take into
consideration STEM scheduling challenges that could lead to lower enrollment in advanced
STEM courses and optimize for enrollment. The proposed recommendation is for a Facility
Study to be conducted that includes a comprehensive analysis and assessment of current facilities
as well as current and future student growth needs and specify if seating capacity upgrades are
required. The SSISD Facility Study Committee should be comprised of students, parents,
community members, business partners, and SSISD educators and make a presentation of the
SSISD Board. The proposed recommendation is to advocate to the state of Texas Legislature to
change through law that the University of Texas and Texas A&M acceptance criteria and lessen
the importance of high school class rank as a factor contributing to the underrepresentation of
female students in STEM.
Limitations and Delimitations
Based upon how I decided to bound this study, how I chose the conceptual framework,
and the methods I pursued, it is important to highlight the possible limitations and delimitations.
The anticipated limitation was certainly around that which I could not control during the study
(Cresswell & Creswell, 2018). I could not control the fact that I did not have the opportunity for
face-to-face interviews as I had to conduct them virtually due to the protocols associated with the
COVID-19 Pandemic. While I had strong support from the SSISD superintendent of schools as
well as the SSISD assistant superintendent of support for this research, I was dependent upon the
CCMR counselors, counselors, and STEM teacher’s voluntary participation. A limitation that I
experienced was the SSISD academic calendar not lining up with the University of Southern
146

California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals process. As a result of the IRB process
carrying from March 2021 into Summer 2021, the study was on hold while I waited for the
return of counselors and STEM teachers for Fall 2021. Counselors and STEM teachers did not
return for the 2021-2022 academic year until mid-August 2021. A limitation that I monitored and
that I shared in the “Researcher” section is that counselors and teachers were very aware that I
lead SSISD policy and vote on their employment contracts and that the superintendent (their
boss) is an of employee of the SSISD board. I continued to reinforce that I was approaching this
research as a doctoral student and limited as best as possible the role of being a board member.
Anticipated delimitations were the decisions that I made that could have implications on
the data I will collect (Creswell & Cresswell, 2018). Based upon the constraint of a one-hour
interview, a delimitation was the number of interview questions that I asked for the study. While
I sought to make meaning of the perceptions of middle and high school female students STEM
choices, a delimitation was that I did not seek direct engagement but utilized the indirect
engagement of both female and male adult counselors and teachers to assist me in better
understanding the student’s reciprocal interaction with their environment and how that manifests
in their behaviors to pursue STEM courses or not.
Recommendations for Future Research
The underrepresentation of female K–12 secondary students in public education is a
problem to continue to highlight and address with intervention policies and programs. While the
participants validated that cultural messages from influencers associate greater STEM ability
with males more than females, the research indicated that counselors do not see a gender
difference when performing their counseling tasks. A counselor’s role is to counsel students to
fully develop each student’s academic, career, personal, and social abilities yet an opportunity
147

for further research is around whether gender in their practices is considered or not. An aspect of
this research should also include an understanding of why there are differing SSISD female
student ethnicity participation rates when compared to other districts, the state of Texas and the
United States as well.
Counselors and STEM teachers indicated that by the time a secondary student arrives at the
junior high school and high school level, students have formed beliefs on whether to pursue or
STEM or not. STEM Teacher 3 specifically highlighted a need to create awareness of the
benefits of STEM in the elementary and middle school years but also highlighted the need to
assess at all grade levels in SSISD, the current capacity of all teachers and staff regarding STEM
subject content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. The opportunity for further
research would be around what are the professional development needs based on SSISD STEM
program goals and the current capacity of leaders, teachers, and staff.
Conclusion
This study gathered information from secondary counselors and STEM teachers about
secondary female students in STEM and was focused on what they described about why some
females enroll in STEM and why some do not. This study was born out of a tour of two different
SSISD high school Project Lead the Way (PLTW) engineering classrooms where only one of the
forty-eight students engaging in hands-on projects was female. In response to why the
underrepresentation of female students in STEM, the response from an administrator on the tour
was that female students have low interest in STEM.
This study, inspired by wanting to better understand the low interest in STEM by
secondary female students, utilized social cognitive theory as lens to view to SSISD student
enrollment choices through the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of secondary female students,
148

their environment, and their behaviors (Wood & Bandura, 1989). This study aimed to understand
secondary counselors and STEM teachers’ perceptions of why secondary female student enroll in
STEM and why some do not. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eleven counselors
and three STEM teachers. The analysis showed that while counselors and STEM teachers are
consumed by their normal responsibilities, they shared their perception of student’s beliefs and
that pursuit of STEM or not is formed early in their lives. Subsequently, their perceptions of a
lack of student gender parity in advanced STEM courses result from decisions that secondary
female students make about STEM based upon the many influences of parents, peers, teachers,
role models, a sense of belonging, scheduling issues, and class rank concerns. Based upon the
participants perceptions of secondary female students, these influences and their resulting
behaviors have led to a lack of gender parity in advanced STEM courses om SSISD. The
implication of a lack of gender parity is that women who make up 51% of the nation’s
population yet comprise only 36% of those are employed in U.S. technology occupations leading
to a lack of gender parity (EEOC, 2016; Peterfreund et al., 2017; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018).
As a school board member for SSISD, I can be a change agent with my fellow school
board members. My theory of change remains in that U.S. K–12 and SSISD secondary female
students can and must be equally represented as male students in STEM enrollment. School
board members make policy and that policy results in changes in our schools. The findings from
this study will provide usable information for SSISD board members to make informed decisions
on policy to drive change in increasing female enrollment in secondary STEM courses.
149

References
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 195–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-800284-1.00004-7
Allen, M., & Crook, J. (2017). More than just race: Proliferation of protected groups and the
increasing influence of the act. In The Fight for Fair Housing.57-75. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315545080-5
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H., AbuBakar, M. A. (2015, December). Ontology,
epistemology and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the
research philosophical misconception. In Proceedings of the Academic Conference:
Mediterranean Publications & Research International on New Direction and
Uncommon (Vol. 2, No. 1)
American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian,
gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 67(1), 10-42.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024659
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Current emotion research in organizational
behavior. Emotion Review, 3(2), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910391684
Atkinson, J. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64(6), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445
Averett, C., Ferraro, D., Tang, J., Erberber, E., & Stearns P. (2018). Trends in international
mathematics and science study (TIMSS), U.S. TIMSS 2015 and TIMSS Advanced 1995 &
2015 Technical Report and User’s Guide (NCES 2018-020). U.S. Department of
150

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018020_1.pdf
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prenctice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011,
November 26). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. SSRN.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1964782
Berube, C. T. (2014). STEM and the city: A report on STEM education in the great American
urban public school system. Information Age Publishing.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.) Pearson A &B.
Bogler, M. (2020, July 15). Diversity, Inclusion & Equity in Tech: Understand the Difference.
General Assembly Blog. https://generalassemb.ly/blog/diversity-inclusion-equity-
differences-in-meaning/.
Borgogni, L., Russo S. D., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions of
the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Borman, T., Margolin, J., Garland, M., Rapaport, A., Park, S. J., & LiCalsi, C. (2017).
Associations between predictive indicators and postsecondary science, technology,
151

engineering, and math success among Hispanic students in Texas (REL 2018–279).
Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Bottoms, G., & Anthony, K. (2005). Project Lead the Way: A pre-engineering curriculum that
works. Southern Regional Education Board.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018). Occupational outlook handbook: computer and information
technology occupations.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1984). Influence of gender constancy and social power on sex-linked
modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1292–1302.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1292
Cheryan, S., Drury, B. J., & Vichayapai, M. (2013). Enduring Influence of Stereotypical
Computer Science Role Models on Women’s Academic Aspirations. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 37(1), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312459328
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient Belonging: How
Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239
College Board (2019). Advanced Placement program Participation and Performance Data 2018.
https://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/archived/ap-2018
Committee on STEM Education National Science and Technology Council (CoSTEM). (2013).
Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 5-year
strategic plan.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf
152

Committee on STEM Education. (2018). Charting a Course for Success: America’s Strategy for
STEM Education. National Science and Technology Council, December, 1–35.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp
Cornwell, C., Mustard, D. B., & Van Parys, J. (2013). Noncognitive skills and the gender
disparities in test scores and teacher assessments: Evidence from primary school. Journal
of Human Resources, 48(1), 236–264. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.48.1.236
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Crombie, G., Sinclair, N., Silverthorn, N., Byrne, B. M., Dubois, D. L., & Trinneer, A. (2005).
Predictors of young adolescents’ math grades and course enrollment intentions: Gender
similarities and differences. Sex Roles, 52(5–6), 351–367.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-2678-1
Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471
Dee, T. S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? American Economic
Review, 95(2), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774670446
Dee, T. S. (2014). Social Identity and achievement gaps: Evidence from an affirmation
intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(2), 149–168.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2014.906009
Dee, T. S., & Gershenson, S. (2017). Unconscious bias in the classroom: Evidence and
opportunities. Google's Computer Science Education Research. https://goo.gl/O6Btqi
153

Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity
between goals and roles. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342
Diekman, A. B., & Steinberg, M. (2013). Navigating social roles in pursuit of important goals: A
communal goal congruity account of STEM pursuits. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 7(7), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12042
Diekman, A. B., Steinberg, M., Brown, E. R., Belanger, A. L., & Clark, E. K. (2016). A goal
congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal
processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(2), 142–
175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141
Dotson, M. E., Alvarez, V., Tackett, M., Asturias, G., Leon, I., & Ramanujam, N. (2020). Design
thinking-based STEM Learning: Preliminary results on achieving scale and sustainability
through the ignite model. Frontiers in Education, 5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00014
Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. In 6th Biennial International
Conference on Technology Education Research (Vol. 10), March, 1–8.
http://www.iteea.org/Resources/PressRoom/AustraliaPaper.pdf
Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 18 (4), 585-609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-
6402.1994.tb01049.x
Eccles, J. S. (2011). Gendered educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al.1
model of achievement-related choices. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
35(3), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411398185
154

Eccles-Parsons, J.S., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece J.L., et al
(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement
and achievement motivation.75–146. W. H. Freeman
Ehlers Reflecting on STEM Education. (2010, Sep 30). US Fed News Service, including US State
News. https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/newspapers/reflecting-on-stem-
education/docview/755519181/se-2?accountid=14749
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation.
Guilford Press.
Estrada, L., Rodríguez, E., & Meléndez, A. (2018). Healthy choices with problem-based
learning. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 89(1), 55–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2018.1393229
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American
Psychologist, 48(6), 621.
Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents’ influence on children’s achievement-related
perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 435–452.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.2.435
Gartner CEB Corporate Leadership Council (2012). Creating competitive advantage through
workforce diversity. Gartner. https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-
council/assetviewer.html.
Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (2004). Secondary student perceptions of classroom quality:
Instrumentation and differences between advanced/honors and nonhonors classes.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-
464
155

Glanz, K. (2001). Current theoretical bases for nutrition intervention and their uses. In Nutrition
in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease (pp. 83-93). Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012193155-1/50008-8
Google & Gallup (2015) Searching for computer science: Access and barriers in U.S. K–12
education. https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/searching-for-computer-
science_report.pdf.
Google. (2016). Diversity gaps in computer science: Exploring the underrepresentation of Girls,
Blacks, and Hispanics. http://goo.gl/PG34aH
Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. (2012). American
Psychologist, 67(1), 10–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024659
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A.
(2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, Supplement, 8(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-
1006.2007.00032.x
Herring, C. (2017). Is diversity still a good thing? American Sociological Review, 82(4), 868–
877. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417716611
Herro, D., Quigley, C., & Jacques, L. A. (2018). Examining technology integration in middle
school STEAM units. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(4), 485–498.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2018.1514322
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
156

Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why So Few? In American Association of University
Women (Vol. 5, Issue 3).
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED509653
Holistic Application Review. Freshman Admission Review | Undergraduate Admissions | The
University of Texas at Austin. (n.d.).
https://admissions.utexas.edu/apply/decisions/holistic-review.
Hyde, J. (2014). Gender Similarities and Differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 373–
398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057
Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender
similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364
Johnson, D. R. (2012). Campus racial climate perceptions and overall sense of belonging among
racially diverse women in STEM majors. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2),
336–346. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0028
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2020). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Sage.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (n.d.). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based
learning. Purdue e-Pubs. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1080
Kaldaras, L., Akaeze, H., & Krajcik, J. (2020). Developing and validating next generation
science standards ‐aligned learning progression to track three‐dimensional learning of
electrical interactions in high school physical science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 58(4), 589–618. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21672
157

Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in
job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 593–641.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Sage.
Leaper, C., Farkas, T., & Brown, C. S. (2011). Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related
beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 41(3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9693-z
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of stem integration and education: A
systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
Master, A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. (2014). Reducing adolescent girls’ concerns about
STEM stereotypes: When do female teachers matter? Revue Internationale de
Psychologie Sociale, 27(3–4), 79–102. https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-
psychologie-sociale-2014-3-page-79.htm
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
McCarthy, R., & Slater, R. (2011). Beyond smash and crash: Part two. Technology &
Engineering Teacher, 70(4), 25-33. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/beyond-smash-crash-part-two/docview/2196452238/
McMullin, K., & Reeve, E. (2014). Identifying perceptions that contribute to the development of
successful project lead the way pre-engineering programs in Utah. Journal of Technology
Education, 26(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v26i1.a.2
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
158

implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Modi, K., Schoenberg, J., & Salmond, K. (2012). Generation STEM: what girls say about
science, technology, engineering, and math. The Girl Scout Research Institute.
https://www.girlscouts.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsusa/forms-and-documents/about-
girl-scouts/research/generation_stem_full_report.pdf
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: a pragmatic approach.
Sage.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Sanzari, C., Caluori, N., & Rabasco, H. (2018). Gender bias produces
gender gaps in STEM engagement. Sex Roles, 79(11-12), 651–670.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0902-z
Mueller, J. L., Dotson, M. E., Dietzel, J., Peters, J., Asturias, G., Cheatham, A., Krieger, M.,
Taylor, B., Broverman, S., & Ramanujam, N. (2020). Using human-centered design to
connect engineering concepts to sustainable development goals. AEE Journal, 8(2).
https://doi.org/10.18260/3-1-1113-36015
Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat. Psychological Science,
18(10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council (2009). Engineering in K-12
education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12635
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. STEM Highlights 2020. (n.d.).
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_ostem_highlights_2020_0.pdf
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Sputnik and the Dawn of the Space Age. (n.d.).
https://history.nasa.gov/sputnik.html
159

National Center for Women and Information Technology. (2008) Evaluating promising practices
in informal information technology (IT) education for girls: Phase III: Women in IT—
survey results. https://www.ncwit.org/pdf/NCWIT‐GSUSAPhaseIIIReport_FINAL.pdf.
National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (NCWGE). (2017). Title IX at 45:
Advancing Opportunity through Equity in Education. NCWGE.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. U.S. Department of Education.
National Education Association. (1894). Report of the committee of ten on secondary school
studies with the reports of the conferences arranged by the committee. The American
Book Company.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/ 13165.
National Research Council. (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable
knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016.
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/
National Science Board. (2018). Science and engineering indicators 2018.
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report
National Science Board. (2020). Science and Engineering Indicators 2020.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/assets/nsb20201.pdf
160

National Science Foundation. (2003). The science and engineering workforce: Realizing
America’s potential. National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation (2017). National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
Data Tables. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/data.
Neff, M., (2020). A history of STEM education. https://www.sutori.com/mark-neff
Noonan, R. (2017, November 13). Women in STEM: 2017 update. ESA issue brief #06-17. US
Department of Commerce. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED590906
Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (2016). Revisiting ‘effectiveness of problem-based learning
curricula: Theory, Practice and Paper Darts.’ Medical Education, 50(8), 793–797.
https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12800
Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math
engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1125–
1156. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410683
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4
th
ed.). Sage.
Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2017). Theorizing the nexus of steam practice. Arts Education
Policy Review, 119(2), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.1316331
Peterfreund, A., Zinth, J., Stanton, J., Hendrickson, K., Goldsmith, L., Yongpradit, P., Zarch, R.,
Dunton, S., & Adrion, W. (2017). State of the states landscape report: State-level
policies supporting equitable K–12 computer science education. Education Commission
of the States. https://www.ecs.org/state-of-the-states-landscape-report-state-level-
policies-supporting-equitable-K–12-computer-science-education/
161

Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2015). Trajectories of self-perceived math ability, utility value and
interest across middle school as predictors of high school math performance. Educational
Psychology, 37(4), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1076765
Pike, G. R., & Robbins, K. (2019). Expanding the pipeline: The effect of participating in Project
Lead the way on majoring in a stem discipline. Journal for STEM Education Research,
2(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00013-y
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2017). Women in technology. https:// www.pwc.co.uk/womenintech.
Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2018). Race and gender
differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM.
International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-
0115-6
Reflecting on STEM Education. (2010, Sep 30). US Fed News Service, Including US State
News. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/newspapers/reflecting-on-stem-education/docview/755519181/se-
2?accountid=14749
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement.
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2019, September 12). Interest and its development, revisited. The
Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (Issue September).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.12
Riegle-Crumb, C., Farkas, G., & Muller, C. (2006). The role of gender and friendship in
advanced course taking. Sociology of Education, 79(3), 206–228.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070607900302
162

Rillero, P. (2010). The rise and fall of science education: A content analysis of science in
elementary reading textbooks of the 19th century. School Science and Mathematics,
110(5), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2010.00034.x
Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2012). Friendship groups, personal motivation, and gender in
relation to high school students' stem career interest. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
23(4), 652–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12013
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Situational interest and academic achievement in the
active-learning classroom. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 58–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.001
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). Interest development: Arousing situational interest
affects the growth trajectory of individual interest. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 49, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.02.003
Russell, M. L., & Atwater, M. M. (2005). Traveling the road to success: A discourse on
persistence throughout the science pipeline with African American students at a
predominantly white institution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 691–
715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20068
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? organizational inclusion to further
performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197–217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students.
Pearson.
Schiebinger, L. L. (2013). Nature's body gender in the making of modern science. Rutgers
University Press.
163

Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Sempa, F. (2002). Geopolitics: From the cold war to the 21st century. Routledge.
Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Parents' socializing behavior and
children's participation in math, science, and computer out-of-school activities. Applied
Developmental Science, 9(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0901_3
Sinkey, A., Rosino, L., & Francisco, M. (2014). Public Audiences Front-End Evaluation Report.
https://www.omsi.edu/sites/default/files/Sinkey2014_DOW_FrontEnd_Evaluation_Repor
t.pdf
Society of Women in Engineering. (n.d.). Introduce a girl to engineering. Retrieved November
7, 2021, from http://www.houstonswe.org/iagte.html.
Steinke, J. (2017). Adolescent girls’ STEM identity formation and media images of STEM
professionals: Considering the influence of contextual cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00716
Steinke, J., Lapinski, M. K., Crocker, N., Zietsman-Thomas, A., Williams, Y., Evergreen, S. H.,
& Kuchibhotla, S. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school–aged children's
perceptions of women in science using the draw-A-scientist test (DAST). Science
Communication, 29(1), 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007306508
Steele, J., James, J. B., & Barnett, R. C. (2002). Learning in a man's world: Examining the
perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 26(1), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00042
164

Stephens, K. R. (1998). Residential math and science high schools: A closer look. Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education, 10(2), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x9801000205
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). Steming the tide: Using
ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–
270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014.). R-words: Refusing research. In Humanizing research:
Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities, 223–248. Sage.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544329611
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions: More than just race. Psychology Today, 17.
https://www.uua.org/
Sue, D. W. (2017). Microaggressions and “evidence.” Perspectives on Psychological Science,
12(1), 170–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616664437
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annual Review of Psychology,
33(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Political
Psychology, 276–293. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16
Terada, Y. (2018, February 23). What's the right amount of homework? Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/article/whats-right-amount-homework.
Texas A&M Admissions. Freshman. (n.d.). https://admissions.tamu.edu/apply/freshman.
Texas A&M Freshman Admission Essentials 2019 Overview. (2019).
https://provost.tamu.edu/Provost/media/Assets/pdfs-essentials/2019-Admissions-
FreshmanOverview.pdf.
165

Texas Education Agency. (2019). Public education information management system (PEIMS)
report 2019–2020. https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/snapshot/2019/index.html.
Texas Education Agency. (2019, August 22). Graduation information. Texas Education Agency.
https://tea.texas.gov/academics/graduation-information.
Texas Education Agency. (2020). Agency Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2021 to 2025.
https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/2021-2025-TEA-Strategic-Plan.pdf
Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Career and Technical Education. Texas Education Agency.
https://tea.texas.gov/texas-educators/certification/career-and-technical-education-cte.
Tiwari, A., Lai, P., So, M., & Yuen, K. (2006). A comparison of the effects of problem-based
learning and lecturing on the development of students' critical thinking. Medical
Education, 40(6), 547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014.). R-words: Refusing research. In Humanizing research:
Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities, 223–248. Sage.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544329611
University of Southern California. (n.d.). Unit 3: Ethics and Theory of Change. In EDUC 532:
Inquiry I: Summer 2020 [Class lecture]. USC. https://www.2sc/rossieronline.usc.edu
University of Southern California. (n.d.). Unit 8: Interviewing: Conducting Interviews. In EDUC
536: Inquiry II: Fall 2020 [Class lecture]. USC. https://www.2sc/rossieronline.usc.edu
University of Southern California. (n.d.). Unit 9: Surveying: Conceptual Foundations. In EDUC
536: Inquiry II: Fall 2020 [Class lecture]. USC. https://www.2sc/rossieronline.usc.edu
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). QuickFacts: Population estimates (Female persons, percent, July 1,
2018). https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/US
166

U.S Census Bureau (2021, January 26). Women making gains in stem occupations but still
underrepresented. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-
in-stem-occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Science, technology, engineering, and math: Leadership
for global education. http://www.ed.gov/stem
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016, Completion’s component.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_reg.asp.
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Fulfills Administration Promise to Invest $200 Million in
STEM Education. (2018, November 08). https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-
department-education-fulfills-administration-promise-invest-200-million-stem-education
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections (2014).
“Informed consent - FAQs: What is informed consent and when, why, and how must it be
obtained?” https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/informed-
consent/index.html
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Diversity in high tech.
https://www.eeoc.gov/special-report/diversity-high-tech
Van Overschelde, J. P. (2013). Project lead the way students more prepared for higher education.
American Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE), 4(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.19030/ajee.v4i1.7854
Vector 8177. (2021, May 27). Home. Retrieved November 7, 2021, from
https://www.vector8177.com.
167

Wang, M. Te. (2012). Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal examination of
the links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and interests.
Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1643–1657. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027247
Wang, M., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using
expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM
fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Free Press.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of Achievement Motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02209024
Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2012). When scientists choose motherhood. American Scientist,
100(2), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1511/2012.95.138
Wojciszke, B., Baryla, W., Parzuchowski, M., Szymkow, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Self-esteem
is dominated by agentic over communal information. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41(5), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.791
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of organizational management. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361. https://doi.org/10.2307/258173

168

Appendix A: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
Study Title: Counselors and Teachers’ Perceptions of Underrepresentation of Female Secondary
Students in STEM
Principal Investigator: Michael Pratt
Department: University of Southern California
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Paula M. Carbone
Detailed Information
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Michael Pratt, under the
supervision of Professor Paula Carbone from the University of Southern California. Your
participation is voluntary. This document explains information about this study. You should
read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before
deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form.
You can keep this form for your records.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to gather information from secondary counselors and STEM
teachers about secondary female students in STEM and is focused on what they describe about
why some females enroll in STEM and why some do not. I hope to better understand and make
meaning of the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the U.S. middle and high school female
students, their environment, and behaviors and how that affect their choices about whether to
take STEM courses or not. You are invited as a possible participant because you are because of
your role in SSISD as a college, career and military coordinator/counselors (CCMR), counselors
or STEM teacher.

169

Participant Involvement
You will be asked to participate in an interview lasting approximately one hour, focused
on your insights about on how middle and high school SSISD education female students perceive
their choices about whether to take STEM courses or not. The interview will be captured using
the Zoom platform with video recording based on your approval. If you do not wish to be
recorded, the interview will be completed without video recording.
If you choose to participate, I would like to work with you to schedule a time over the
next two weeks for the interview. I will email you a calendar notice for the day and time of the
scheduled interview. In the body of the meeting notice there will be an invitation from me for the
scheduled Zoom meeting. You will click on a hyperlink to join the Zoom Meeting and be able to
input nine-digit meeting ID number. The hyperlink will look like https://zoom.us/j/2296370282
and there will also be a meeting identification number (i.e., Meeting ID: 229 637 0282). If you
experience issues with the Zoom link, there will be an option to utilize a telephone to dial from a
local telephone number.
Confidentiality
Only the researcher and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
(IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights
and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. To ensure confidentiality, pseudonyms replace the names of all
participants in the study, documentation and recordings are password protected to ensure that
identities are not exposed to anyone beyond the researcher, and all documentation is scrubbed
prior to distribution to verify confidentiality. Interview data will be kept one year following the
170

completion of the research study and then deleted to reduce the potential for a breach of
confidentiality.
Video recordings captured during the interview process will be deleted following the
transcription of the data no less than one week after the interview. If you would like to review
the video recording or transcription, please contact Michael Pratt (mjpratt@usc.edu) for a copy
of the information.
Investigator’s Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Michael Pratt (Investigator) at mjpratt@usc.edu or Dr. Paula Carbone (Faculty Advisor) at
pmcarbon@usc.edu.
Rights of Research Participant – IRB Contact Information
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
or the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please reach out to the USC IRB office 1640
Marengo St., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90033, (323) 442-0114, irb@usc.edu.

171

Appendix B: Qualitative Interview Protocol
This study includes 14 qualitative interviews of SSISD. The interviews will include 12
counselors including college, career and military coordinator/counselors (CCMR), and two
STEM teachers. The purposeful selection of counselors and teachers will be best to help the
research with insights on how middle and high school SSISD education female students perceive
their choices about whether to take STEM courses (Patton, 2015). The interview process will
pursue a semi-structured approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Further, through this purposeful
sampling, I believe that teachers and counselors are appropriate and will be able to help me
better understand the reciprocal interaction of the U.S. middle and high school female students,
their environment, and behaviors in SSISD.
Introduction
“Good afternoon, Ms. or Mr. ______and thank you the interview opportunity.”
“As I shared with you in my email, I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California.”
“Thank you again for agreeing to participate in my study about counselors and STEM
teachers’ perceptions of the underrepresentation of female secondary students in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics experiences (STEM). I appreciate the time you have
set aside to share your thoughts with me. The interview will last no more than one hour. Does
that still for your schedule and work for you?”
“Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and address
any questions you have about participating. This study is for my doctoral dissertation. The goal
or purpose of my study is to gather information from secondary counselors and teachers about
secondary female students and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). I am
172

focused on what counselors and teachers would describe about why some female students enroll
in STEM and why some do not. Are you OK with this goal?”
“Your participation in this interview is totally voluntary and if there are any questions
you do not want to answer or you want to stop at any time that is fine. Are you OK to proceed?”
“To maintain the confidentiality of the school district and high school, I am going to use
Silver Star ISD as a pseudonym for the school district. I will also use a pseudonym for your
name. The nature of my questions is not evaluative and thus I will not be making any judgments
about you or your responses. Your individual responses will not be shared with anyone;
however, the results of the study may be shared. You will have an opportunity to review my
findings for clarification and accuracy. Are you OK with this plan?”
“What questions do you have about the study before we get started?”
“If you do not have further questions, I would like to obtain your permission to conduct
the interview.”
“May I also have your permission to record by video and audio our conversation so I can
be sure to capture your ideas in your own words? Otherwise, I will take handwritten notes.”
“Again, no one other than I will have access to the recordings, and you can choose to stop
being video and audio recorded at any time. I would now like to proceed with interview
questions.”
Interview Questions for Counselors
1. Can you describe how your education helped to prepare you for this job?
2. How many years of counseling experience? In SSISD?
3. How often do you usually meet with each student?
a. How many students do you have responsibility for?
173

4. Please describe your role as a counselor.
5. How would you describe any role that you might have on students enrolling in STEM
classes?
6. As a counselor, how do you see your role in relation to female enrollment in STEM
courses?
7. Do you ever see any disparities in male/female enrollment in STEM classes?
a. If so, from your perspective, is there anything that you think might encourage
females to take STEM classes?
8. In the past few years, can you comment on whether acceptance of female students in
STEM related courses is increasing or decreasing?
9. When meeting with students, do students’ past grades impact whether they may or may
not take a STEM class?
10. How do students learn about college?
11. Do you have a chance to discuss a student’s beliefs, motivation, and behaviors?
12. Do any influences that might impact their decisions about enrolling in STEM classes
come up during your meetings?
13. What do you believe influences a student’s decision for future course enrollments?
a. Do students ever share how they feel about STEM courses?
b. Do you ever hear them describe their interests or disinterest in STEM?
14. What types of responses do you receive from female students about enrolling in STEM?
15. In your school, how would you describe the female student participation level in STEM?
16. In your experience, are there ever any circumstances in which a female student wanted to
enroll in STEM courses, but external factors prevented it?
174

17. What are some approaches being that may be used to encourage female enrollment in
STEM?
a. From your perspective, can anything [else] be done to cultivate interest in STEM
for female students?
18. Do students ever request a certain section of a STEM course?
a. Are you aware of any teachers’ methods in the classroom were meaningful and
relevant to spark interest and subsequent student achievement?
19. When you meet with students, do they every share personal goals?
20. Do female students share their goals beyond high school?
21. For female students, does family ever come up in your meetings with them?
a. Are you aware of any students who mention their family’s hopes in terms of
career?
22. Do female students ever highlight that courses are masculine or feminine?
23. Do you ever hear of or know of the presence of any type of bias from teachers, parents, or
classmates regarding STEM?
a. If yes: do you ever have students discuss this in terms of how they may or may
not belong in STEM?
24. Does any kind of social influence ever come up when discussing scheduling?
a. If yes, where do you see the influence coming from?
25. Do female students ever share with you the courses that mean the most to them? And
why?
26. What is your perception of why female students may or may not choose STEM?
175

27. Are there any characteristics you may have noticed in female students that may have
influenced them in staying with STEM courses?
28. Are you aware of any extracurricular activities that are STEM related?
a. Do you see any relationship between female enrollment in STEM courses and
extracurricular STEM activities?
29. How important do you think that a sense of belonging plays in female students pursuing
STEM?
30. Are there occasions when you interact with parents in your role?
31. Directly or indirectly, do you see parents influence their views of their children’s math
and science abilities to their children?
32. Do you know of any role models in STEM that female students are able to interact with
during school?
a. Have students mentioned these role models to you?
33. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding the topic?
Interview Questions for STEM Teachers
2. Can you describe how your education helped to prepare you for this job?
3. How many years of teaching experience? In SSISD?
4. How many STEM courses do you teach?
a. Please name them.
b. What percent of your STEM class students are female and male?
5. How would you describe any role you would play on students continuing to take STEM
classes?
176

6. As a teacher, how do you see your role in relation to female enrollment in STEM
courses?
7. As a teacher, do you ever counsel female students in taking other STEM classes?
8. In your classes, do you ever see any disparities in male/female enrollment in STEM
classes?
9. In the past few years, can you comment on whether female students in STEM related
courses is increasing or decreasing?
a. If increasing or decreasing, what in your view does this suggest about STEM?
10. How do students learn about college?
11. During your work with students, are there any opportunities for you to get to know about
student’s beliefs, motivation, and behaviors?
12. What do you believe influences a student’s decision for taking future courses?
a. Do students ever share how they feel about STEM courses?
b. Do you ever hear them describe their interests or disinterest in STEM?
13. Do you ever have female students express their thoughts about taking a STEM course?
14. In your school, how would you describe the female student participation level in STEM?
a. Probe: If low, what are contributors?
15. In your experience, are there ever any circumstances in which a female student wanted to
enroll in STEM courses, but external factors prevented it?
16. What are some instructional methods in the classroom do you believe are most
meaningful and relevant to spark interest and subsequent student achievement?
17. Do you every think about females in STEM in your teaching?
18. Do female students share their goals beyond high school?
177

19. For female students, does family ever come up in your discussions?
a. Are you aware of any students who mention their family’s hopes in terms of
career?
20. Do female students ever highlight that their STEM classes are masculine or feminine?
21. Do female students ever highlight that STEM course content or curriculum fits or does
not fit for them?
22. In your role, do you ever hear of or know of presence of any type of bias from parents or
classmates regarding STEM?
a. If yes: do you ever have students discuss this in terms of how they may or may
not belong in STEM?
23. Do you perceive any gender ability beliefs or cultural messages that come up in a STEM
class?
24. Do female students ever share with you the courses that mean the most to them? And
why?
25. What is your perception of why female students may or may not choose STEM?
a. Do they share their reasons?
26. Are there any characteristics you may have noticed in female students that may have
influenced them in staying with STEM courses?
27. Do you or any other STEM teachers sponsor extracurricular activities that are STEM
related?
a. Do you see any relationship between female enrollment in STEM courses and
extracurricular STEM activities?
178

28. How important do you think a sense of belonging plays in female students pursuing
STEM?
29. Are there occasions when you interact with parents in your role?
a. Directly or indirectly, do you see parents influence their views of their children’s
math and science abilities to their children?
30. Is there an ever a time when you utilize any role models in STEM?
a. Is there an occasion for female students to interact with role models during school?
31. Does popular media every come up in class? TV, movies, etc.?
32. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding the topic?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Influence of globalization, school leadership, and students’ participation in science competitions on 21st-century skill development, instructional practices, and female students’ interest in sci...

PDF

The lack of National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) hiring of male and female BIPOC athletics coaches

PDF

The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study

PDF

New school counselor's perception of preparedness

PDF

Navy social and organizational culture and their influence on female officer retention

PDF

Cultural wealth exploration of Black female executives and its additive value in STEM corporations: a cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) analysis

PDF

Facilitation of postsecondary opportunities for secondary students with special needs: an evaluation study

PDF

Reaching the middle: an exploration of guidance support services in pursuit of college readiness for all students

PDF

The impact of teacher perceptions about underrepresented students

PDF

Centering women's voices in CQAD accredited post-secondary institutions

PDF

Retaining racially minoritized students in community college STEM programs

PDF

Women in leadership: how female leaders fair in America’s commercial insurance industry

PDF

An exploration of the effect of the development of spatial awareness as a prerequisite science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skill on the STEM gender achievement gap: an innovation study

PDF

Gender disparity in law enforcement

PDF

Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher advis...

PDF

Sustainable fashion leadership: The female phenomenon

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Mathematics, Engineering, Science, Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher a...

PDF

Investigating the personal and organizational factors influencing the departure of female physicians from healthcare leadership roles

PDF

The underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) leadership positions

Asset Metadata

Creator Pratt, Michael J. (author)

Core Title Counselors and teachers’ perceptions of underrepresentation of female secondary students in STEM

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 02/07/2022

Defense Date 02/07/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag counselors,gender parity,K–12,OAI-PMH Harvest,secondary female students,social cognitive theory,STEM,STEM students,STEM teachers

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula (committee chair)

Creator Email michaelpratt2010@gmail.com,mjpratt@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110618315

Unique identifier UC110618315

Legacy Identifier etd-PrattMicha-10381

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Pratt, Michael J.

Type texts

Source 20220207-usctheses-batch-911 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu