Authors : Roderick D. Swanson

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3jv89858

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3audy6cw

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24JUL1437

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : STEM is the acronym for the fields of study in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This manuscript is to highlight the need to increase the number of females pursuing education and future employment opportunities in careers that requires study in STEM. Regarding STEM programs, education leaders must provide advantages that bridge the academic achievement gaps for females and other underrepresented minoritized (URM) student groups. Parents, teachers, and school administrators must fill the gaps often found in the academic areas of mathematics and science. The resolution is to introduce students at an early age to the American workforce in STEM-related fields. Students' early interventions include businesses, industries, and community mentorship programs. These mentorship programs are central to meeting every capable STEM worker's need to keep America in a global leadership position. At the forefront, educationalists, policymakers, and legislators are taking the initiative to establish a firm educational foundation that will increase the roles of women and minorities in STEM-related fields. STEM education must break traditional ethnic and gender roles. America must ensure that every gender, race, or ethnicity has a seat at the economic table. Minorities having a seat at the trade and industry table is essential for the nation to compete in a global economy. The educational systems must spark an interest in students pursuing a career in the various fields of STEM. Nevertheless, more people of color must sit at the economic negotiation table to decide their future.

Keywords : STEM Career Programs, Female Students, Underrepresented Minoritized Student Groups, Policymakers’ Directives, Educational Leadership and Law.

References :

1. Allina, B. (2017). The development of STEAM educational policy to promote student creativity and social empowerment, Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913. 2017.1296392
2. Al Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & de Miranda, M. A. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary STEM teaching, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 63–88. https://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007%2Fs10798-015-9341-0
3. Andersen, L., & Ward, T. J. (2014). Expectancy-value models for the STEM persistence plans of ninth-grade, high-ability students: A comparison between black, Hispanic, and white students, Science Education, 98(2), 216–242. https://doi-org.ezproxy. lib.alasu.edu/doi 10.1002/sce.21092
4. Aspen Institute. (2015). Roles and responsibilities of the state education agency: Discussion guide for state leaders. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. http://www.aspendrl.org/portal/browse/DocumentDetail?documentId=2846&download
5. Bell, D., Wooff, D., McLain, M., & Morrison-Love, D. (2017). Analyzing design and technology as an educational construct: an investigation into its curriculum position and pedagogical identity, Curriculum Journal, 28(4), 539–558. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09585176.2017.1286995
6. Blair, E. E., Miller, R. B., Ong, M., & Zastavker, Y. V. (2017). Undergraduate STEM Instructors’ Teacher Identities and Discourses on Student Gender Expression and Equity. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 14–43. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib. alasu.edu/10.1002/jee.20157
7. Briggs, C. (2016). The Policy of STEM Diversity: Diversifying STEM Programs in Higher Education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 17(4), 5–7. http://0-search.ebscohost.com. mwrlibrary.armybiznet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=120852279&site=ehost-live&scope= site
8. Brown, P. L., Concannon, J. P., Marx, D., Donaldson, C. W., & Black A. (2016). An examination of middle school students' STEM self-efficacy with relation to interest and perceptions of STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 17(3), 27–38. https://search.proquest.com/ openview/c4586d74ee22e7d59cc2370a6ab3a7aa/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=27549
9. Brown, R., Ernst, J., Clark, A., DeLuca, B., & Kelly, D. (2017). Premiere PD: Engaging Females in STEM, Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(2), 30–34. https://www.iteea.org/
10. Carmichael, C. C. (2017). A state-by-state policy analysis of STEM education for K-12 public schools (Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University). https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3342&context=dissertations
11. Dejarnette, N. K. (2018). Early Childhood Steam: Reflections from a Year of Steam Initiatives Implemented in a High-Needs Primary School. Education, 139(2), 96–110. http://0-search.ebscohost. com.mwrlibrary.armybiznet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=134289381&site=ehost-live& scope=site
12. Diemer, M. A., Marchand, A. D., McKellar, S. E., & Malanchuk, O. (2016). Promotive and Corrosive Factors in African American Students’ Math Beliefs and Achievement. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 45, 1208–1225. org.ezproxy.lib.alasu.edu//doi10.1007/s 10964-016-0439-9
13. English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5-24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication /314489807_Advancing_Elementary_and_Middle_School_STEM_Education
14. Ejiwale, J. A. (2014). Facilitating collaboration across science, technology, engineering & mathematics (STEM) fields in program development, Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 15(2), 35–39. http://0-search.ebscohost. com.mwrlibrary.armybiznet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=98981937&site=ehost-live&scope =site
15. Garibay, J. C. (2018). Beyond Traditional Measures of STEM Success: Long-Term Predictors of Social Agency and Conducting Research for Social Change. Research in Higher Education, 59(3), 349–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9470-2
16. Gottfried, M. A., Stecher, B. M., Hoover, M., & Cross, A. B. (2011). Federal and state roles and capacity for improving schools. https://www.rand.org /content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2011/RAND_TR989.pdf
17. Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: scientific curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2), 445–458. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.alasu.edu/ 10.1007/s11422-014-9590-3
18. Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2017). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching through professional development: implications for teacher educators, Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 416–438. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 19415257.2016.1205507?journalCode=rjie20
19. Honey M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academy of Press. http://www.nap. edu/catalog.php?record_id=18612
20. Honingh, M., Ruiter, M., & Thiel, S. V. (2018). Are school boards and educational quality related? Results of an international literature review, Educational Review, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00131911.2018.1487387
21. Holmlund, T. D., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts, International Journal of STEM Education, 5(32). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0127-2
22. Horsford, S. D., Scott, J. T., & Anderson, G. L. (2019). The politics of education policy in an era of inequality: Possibilities for democratic schooling. New York City, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
23. Implications for Future Research, Policy, and Practice in STEM Education. (2011). ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6), 87–126. http://0-search. ebscohost.com.mwrlibrary.armybiznet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=58687900&site=ehost-live&scope=site
24. Israel, S. (2017). Building America’s future: STEM education intervention is a win-win. Research inside Wharton Public Policy Initiative, 1–11. https:// publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2188-building-americas-future-stem-education
25. Johnson, C. C. (2010). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 150–161. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18172.x
26. Knowles, J. G., Kelly, T. R., & Holland, J. D. (2018). Increasing teacher awareness of STEM careers. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 19(3), 47–55. http://0-web.b.ebscohost. com.mwrlibrary.armybiznet.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=fb658f43-41e0-48c2-b05c-58c4b800ab63%40pdc-v-sessmgr02
27. Long, L. L., & Mejia, J. A. (2016). Conversations about Diversity: Institutional Barriers for Underrepresented Engineering Students. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 211–218. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.alasu.edu/10.1002/jee.20114
28. Lynch, S. J., Peters-Burton, E. & Ford, M. (2014). Building STEM opportunities for all. Educational Leadership. 72(4). 54–60. http://www.ascd.org/ publications/educational-leadership/dec14/vol72/ num04/Building-STEM-Opportunities-for-All.aspx
29. Lynch, S. J., Erin Peters-Burton, Behrend, T., House, A., Ford, M., Spillane, N., Matray, S., Han, E., & Means, B. (2018). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 712–748. https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tea.21437
30. Lyon, G.H., Jafri, J., & St. Louis, K. (2012). Beyond the pipeline: STEM pathways for youth development. Afterschool Matters. 1(16). p. 48-57. https://projectex ploration.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ASM_ 2012_16_fall.pdf
31. Malhotra, R., Kantor, C., & Vlahovic, G. (2018). Geospatial Intelligence Workforce Development in a Changing World - An HBCU Focus. Southeastern Geographer, 58(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1353/ sgo.2018.0008
32. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(2), 1-16. https://link.springer. com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs40594-018-0151-2.pdf
33. 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.
34. Mervis, J. (2013). Wild Cards Remain After Proposed Reshuffle of STEM Education. Science, 340(6130), 258–259. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 340.6130.258
35. Moakler, M. W., & Kim, M. M. (2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors, The Career Development Quarterly, 62, 128–142. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib. alasu.edu/ https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014. 00075.x
36. Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. (2013). Perceptions, engagement, and practices of teachers seeking professional development in place-based integrated STEM. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), 242–265. https://journals.rowman.com
37. National Science Board (2015). Revisiting the STEM workforce: a companion to science and engineering indicators 2014 (pp. 46). Arlington: National Science Foundation.
38. Olitsky, N. (2014). How Do Academic Achievement and Gender Affect the Earnings of STEM Majors? A Propensity Score Matching Approach. Research in Higher Education, 55(3), 245–271. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11162-013-9310-y
39. Pennington, C. R., & Heim, D. (2016). Creating a critical mass eliminates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12110.
40. Pennington, C. R., Kaye, L. K., Qureshi, A. W., & Heim, D. (2018). Controlling for prior attainment reduces the positive influence that single-gender classroom initiatives exert on high school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 385–393. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-017-0799-y
41. Peters-Burton, E., Lynch, S., Behrend, T., & Means, B. (2014). Inclusive STEM High School Design: 10 Critical Components. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 64 –71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862125
42. Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M., Schroeder, D. C., Delaney, A., Putnam, L., & Cremeans, C. (2018). Students' perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International journal of STEM education, 5(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4
43. Smith, D. J. (2017). Implications for Policy and Practice: Summary of the Volume and Lessons for the Future of CTE Programs and STEM. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2017(178), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20256
44. Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective practices in STEM integration: describing teacher perceptions and instructional method use. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04183.
45. STEM Education Coalition (2014). Statement of core policy principles. http://www.stemedcoalition.org
46. Su, X., & Bozeman, B. (2016).  Family Friendly Policies in STEM Departments: Awareness and Determinants. Research in Higher Education, 57(8), 990–1009. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.alasu.edu/10. 1007/s11162-016-9412-4
47. Su, X., Johnson, J., & Bozeman, B. (2015) Gender diversity strategy in academic departments: Exploring organizational determinants. High Education, 69, 839–858. https://doi-org.ezproxy. lib.alasu.edu/ doi 10.1007/s10734-014-9808-z
48. Wang, M-T. & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140. https://doi-org. ezproxy.lib.alasu.edu/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x  
49. Wang, X. Lee, S. Y., & Prevost, A. (2017). The role of aspirational experiences and behaviors in cultivating momentum for transfer access in STEM: Variations across gender and race. Community College Review, 45(4), 311–330. doi:10.1177/ 0091552117724511.
50. Weber, K. (2012). Gender differences in interest, perceived personal capacity, and participation in STEM-related activities. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 18-33.
51. Wolfmeyer, M. (2017). A Postmathenatical topology? Of STEM education policy: Networks and discursive Communities. SoJo Journal, 3(1), 13–25. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.mwrlibrary.armybiznet .com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=133297621&site=ehost-live&scope=site
52. Zellmer, A. J., & Sherman, A. (2017). Culturally inclusive STEM education. Science, 358(6361), 312–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0358
53. Zeng, L., & Poelzer, G. H. (2016). Analyses of Trends in High School Students' Math-Science Course Credit Attainment and Registrations in Texas. Education, 137(2), 157-197. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1787/ eag_highlights-2012-en