Next Article in Journal
Strategies for Attention to Diverse Education in Omani Society: Perceptions of Secondary School Students
Previous Article in Journal
What Do the Relationships between Pre-Service Biology Teachers’ Personality and Professional Knowledge Reveal about Their Innovativeness?—An Exploratory Study Using Canonical Correlation Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

STEM Career Interest of Kazakhstani Middle and High School Students

1
Solid state Physics and Nonlinear Physics Department, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, 050040 Almaty, Kazakhstan
2
Department of Pedagogy of Natural sciences, Suleymen Demirel University, 040900 Kaskelen, Kazakhstan
3
Department of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics Teaching Methods, Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, 050010 Almaty, Kazakhstan
4
Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università Roma Tre, 00146 Rome, Italy
5
INFN Sezione di Roma Tre, 00146 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 19 May 2022 / Revised: 1 June 2022 / Accepted: 6 June 2022 / Published: 11 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section STEM Education)

Abstract

:
The aim of this study is to analyze secondary school students’ career interests in STEM subjects. This survey-based quantitative research is provided to gain insight into the STEM career interests of 398 students (7–11 graders), in the Almaty region of the Kazakhstan Republic. Through parametric and non-parametric test analysis, the relationship between students’ STEM career interest and their gender, their parents’ occupation, parents’ education, family size, school type, and school location were revealed. Results indicated that, on average, participant students showed positive interest in STEM careers. In particular, boys’ and girls’ responses were equally positive in many sub-scales of STEM. Additionally, great interest in STEM careers was shown by village students, whereas, for private school students who are living in the city, STEM career interests were the lowest in our sample. We also found that students’ family size, parents’ education, and occupation does not relate to students’ STEM career interest. Implications for STEM education in Kazakhstan are further discussed in this study.

1. Introduction

Among the study disciplines of tertiary education, those concerning Science, Engineering, Technology and Mathematics (STEM) still represent a sore point of the education system around the world. On average, across OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) and partner countries, 27% of new entrants into bachelor’s programs enroll in a STEM field [1], but these numbers still seem to be too low to satisfy the need for qualified scientific human resources [2]. Suffice it to think, in fact, that the next few years will be crucial to addressing and solving long-standing problems, such as climate change and the consequent necessity of building alternative models of growth, which would require more and more technical and scientific skills [3].
For this reason, the scientific community, and science education research, in particular, has been committed for many years to finding ways to favor the choice of STEM careers by young people [4,5]. As a starting point of this effort, a detailed analysis of the factors that have been shown to influence this choice is needed, in order to eventually act on them.
In general, students’ attitudes towards STEM disciplines seem to be generally positive [6,7]—although with some differences between nationality, gender, and subject [5,8]—but their interest in becoming a scientist is low [7,9]. Christidou, 2011, effectively summarized this paradox writing: “students rapidly lose their interest in science and cease seeing it as a viable option for their future or associating it with their success aspirations”. This tendency could be due to the fact that students’ knowledge about scientific professions is often limited, confused, and filled with stereotypes [10,11]. In some cases, scientists’ work is exaggerated, so that scientists are only seen as intellectually gifted geniuses, who sacrifice their life to the conquest of knowledge [12,13]. In some other cases, on the contrary, their job is oversimplified. A striking example in this sense is provided by Kier, 2013, and her colleagues, who trace in the literature the development of children’s imaginary about engineers: elementary students commonly draw engineers as men who fix things like a mechanic [14], and middle school students follow the same path representing engineers as males who work on cars, trains or fix and build things [14,15]. Scientific activity thus suddenly becomes, as a whole, impersonal, competitive, guided by rules, and lacking imagination, especially for girls [16,17]. Inevitably, this imaginary negatively shapes students’ self-efficacy toward science [18,19] and directly affects their intentions of pursuing a STEM career in the future [20].
Students interest in STEM subjects vary according to gender [21]. Many studies support significant gender differences [22,23,24,25], while few studies found no gap or little gap [26,27].
The learning environment in which students grow also strongly influences their STEM career interest. In addition to the type of school and its location [28], the teaching approach to which students are exposed greatly affects them. Still today scientific subjects are often taught with a traditional teacher-centered mode which leads students to think that science is boring or constituted by a sterile sequence of notions [7,29,30], while a more meaningful, informal, flexible, peer-reviewed, collaborative, student-driven inquiry modality demonstrated to be enormously more effective [31,32]. Moreover, sometimes teachers are unknowingly driven by some bias that influences the way students build their own relationship with science, especially when it comes to girls [29,30,33].
STEM career propensity is also affected by society at large. Family members and their job occupation and education, peers, role models offered by the media, extracurricular experiences: all these elements combined define students’ academic aspirations [34,35].
Faced with such a complex set of factors that intertwine with each other, research in science education developed and optimized tools that help to predict interest and intent to pursue tertiary education careers from young people. Even in the last 15 years alone, numerous instruments have been proposed. In 2008, Whitfield, Feller, and Wood [36] identified 10 instruments that are effective at determining career interests in their “Counselor’s guide”, which, even though not specifically dedicated to STEM disciplines, has been cited by subsequent more focused studies [9,37]. In 2009, Bowdich [38] developed a career interest questionnaire (CIQ) for a project promoting STEM interest in Hawaii: a Likert-type (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) instrument composed of 13 items on three scales. Subsequently, in 2010, Tyler-Wood and colleagues [39] re-elaborated Bowdich’s CIQ obtaining a Likert-type (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) instrument composed of 12 items that measures students’ interest in careers in broad science areas. In addition to this questionnaire, they also used the STEM semantic survey, that aims at measuring interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, as well as interest in STEM careers by both students and teachers, analyzing five pairs of opposing adjectives (i.e., “fascinating” vs. “mundane”).
All the tools presented so far, however, although effective, do not rely on a real theoretical framework.
Other proposals are instead based on a theoretical framework proposed in 1994 by Lent [40], called social cognitive career theory (SCCT). This model, developed from Bandura’s [41] general social cognitive theory, aims at exploring three aspects of career development: how career interests develop, how educational and career choices are made, and how academic and professional success is accomplished. In order to achieve this, SCCT considers three fundamental elements: self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and goals. These elements, combined with personal inputs (i.e., race, gender, predispositions…), intrapersonal factors (such as personality) and interests, can explain how individuals make career-related decisions [9]. Guided by this model, many subsequent studies focused on assessing interest in STEM content areas and STEM careers. For example, Fouad [42] measured self-efficacy, outcome-expectancy and intentions and goals in mathematics; Baldwin [43] made an analogous thing for biology; Stone [44] focused on beliefs, attitudes, and intentions to pursue careers in information technology. A survey measuring interest in different subject area (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) was instead developed by Kier and her colleagues [9], called the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS). In this case, questions were developed based on self-efficacy, outcome expectation, personal inputs, and contextual support and barriers.

STEM in Kazakhstan

In the last decade, the active development of STEM education has also begun in Kazakhstan. According to the Department of Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (MEARK), 2022), since the 2016–2017 academic year, the elective course “Robotics”, which is aimed to develop STEM among middle and high school students, has been implemented in 2500 schools. A robotics laboratory has been opened in 1100 schools. Overall, 1626 schools (23.1%) have robotics elective courses with more than 32,000 students (Ref). To support this, activities in annual republican and international robotic Olympiads are held since 2016 all around the country, such as the Republican Olympiad in robotics, International Robotics Festival “RoboLand”, etc., (Ref). The winners of the republican competitions have the opportunity to participate in the World Robotics Olympiad (WRO).
Unfortunately, until now, governmental programs about broad implementation of STEM in Kazakhstan were limited by the field of robotics [45,46]. This year, the State Program for the Development of Education and Science began to develop interdisciplinary links between STEM subjects. Implementation of the new educational policy is aimed to master students’ knowledge about new technologies, scientific innovations, and mathematical modeling during physics, Math, Biology, Chemistry, and Technology subjects [47]. It shows us that Kazakhstani education needs comprehensive STEM research, which prompted us to carry out current research. To achieve the goal of our work we set the following research questions:
  • How do students’ STEM Career Interest changes across grade levels for each STEM subject?
  • How do students’ STEM Career Interest changes across gender for each STEM subject?
  • Is there a relationship between students’ STEM Career Interest and the number of siblings for each STEM subject?
  • Is there a relationship between students’ STEM Career Interest and their Physics, Maths, Chemistry, and Biology grades for each STEM subject?
  • Is there a relationship between students’ STEM Career Interest and their parents’ occupation and education?
  • Is there a relationship between students’ STEM Career Interest and the school type and location?

2. Materials and Methods

This is a survey based on quantitative research, it was provided to gain insight about STEM career interest of 7–11 graders, in the Almaty region of Kazakhstan Republic.

2.1. Instrument

In the research, we have used STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS) that was initially developed by Kier, Blanchard, Osborne, and Albert (2014), in order to define the factors that affect students STEM Career Interest in their future life. The survey consists of 44 items and four sub scales; Science, Technology, Mathematics, and Engineering, which were based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory. This social cognitive theory examines factors, such as self-efficacy, outcome expectation, personal input, contextual support, and barriers.
The reliability and psychometric properties of the STEM-CIS was established by more than 1000 students. The survey includes questions such as: I am able to get good marks in science subjects, I am able to complete my Math subjects homework, I plan to use technology in my future career, I will work hard on activities at school that involve engineering, etc.
We used this survey to find out how students’ attitude to STEM career interest changes according to grade level, gender, end of term marks from STEM subjects (Math, Physics, Biology, and Chemistry), students’ parents education and job occupation, number of siblings in the family, location, and type of school attended.
We found that Cronbach’s alphas for the 44 items of Career Interest Survey were 95. Moreover, the item total correlation values were between 0.29 and 0.65, and if any items were deleted from the survey, Cronbach’s alphas either did not change or decreased. Thus, all items were kept for further analysis.

2.2. The Sample Specification

Current research was carried out in Almaty. Almaty is the biggest city in Kazakhstan with a population of more than 1.777 million people. As in many other big cities, Almaty has many schools that have different programs and styles of teaching. Along with Almaty city, we collected responses from students who live in nearby city regions (suburbs) and students who live in the villages which are far away from Almaty city.
In our sample, we had five different types of schools: Governmental school (GS), specialized school for gifted children (GC), Private school (PS), Gymnasium (G), and Intellectual school (IS). These five types of schools mainly aimed to cover the governmental educational program, which was established by the Ministry of Education of Republic of Kazakhstan. Although each of these schools have their own peculiarities. The most popular schools in Kazakhstan are governmental schools that cover the main educational standard of the country. These schools are free of charge for students and have programs for students from the 1st grade up to 11th grade. For most Kazakhstani schools, STEM subjects, such as Biology, Physics, and Chemistry, start from the 7th grade. The second type of school is the specialized school for gifted children, these schools accept 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students by special entrance exams. These schools’ teaching program is the same as the program of governmental schools, but the only difference of these schools: here the number of teaching hours per week of natural sciences subjects are greater than for other subjects. It means in specialized school for gifted children is designed to provide “additional” (in-depth) training for students at natural science subjects. The third type of school is the gymnasium, it implements general educational programs of basic general and secondary education, providing additional (in-depth) training of students in social subjects. In Kazakhstan there are different types of private schools, each of them, beside the governmental study program, have their own trajectory of teaching. They adopt foreign countries’ (mostly the UK’s educational program) educational programs into the main educational program of Kazakhstan. Another type of school is the Intellectual Schools. This is a special school that was established in 2008, that has adopted the A-Level educational standard into the Kazakhstani educational program. These schools are special governmental projects aimed at developing the technical specialties of the country. Currently, we have 22 Intellectual schools countrywide and all of these schools are oriented to natural sciences. To enter these schools, students take an entrance exam at the end of 6th grade and start study at the beginning of 7th grade. All these schools are funded by the government, students who study there get meals, a uniform, and student accommodation for those students whose parental home is far away from the school.
According to the location of the school, we divided students into three groups: schools located in the city (CS), schools located in the villages (VS) far from the city, and the schools located near the city regions (NS), these schools are mainly located in the suburbs.
Since we have many specialties and job occupations of parents, we divided students by their parents’ job occupation in three groups: Those who work for the government (GW), those who are self-employed (SW), and those who do not work (NW). Additionally, according to parents’ education, we divided students according to whose parents have graduated from natural science specialty (NS), whose parents have a social science specialty (SS), and whose parents have not graduated from university (NG).

2.3. Data Collection

Data collection was provided by Google Forms online platform, STEM - CIS was sent to students by email. Students used their mobile phones and personal computers in order to answer the questions. The survey was completed by 398 students from grades 7 to 11 and was sent back to us via email. In the online questionnaire, participants were first asked the aforementioned demographics and then a set of, 5-point Likert scale, scaled questions (1 = “Strongly Agree”, 5 = “Strongly Disagree”) measuring their interest towards STEM subjects. Among our sample, 94 students were from 7th grade, 82 students from 8th grade, 50 students from 9th grade, 97 students from 10th grades, and 76 students from 11th grade. At the beginning of the survey all students were informed that the survey is voluntary and anonymous.

2.4. Data Analysis

All datasets were checked to normality by the Shapiro–Wilk test. Furthermore, for normally distributed samples we used one way ANOVA test, for non-normally distributed samples we applied non-parametric ANOVA, i.e., Kruskal–Wallis test. Students’ responses about gender groups was analyzed by t-test, since here we have two independent samples. Correlation analysis was applied in order to know correlation between students’ STEM career interest and students’ grades.

3. Results

3.1. Career Interest According to Grade Levels

Our first research question was: how do students’ STEM Career Interest change across grade level, for each STEM subject? In our sample, there were five grade levels. Depending on the assumptions, we carried out one way ANOVA (Table 1) or Kruskal–Wallis test (Table 2) to see students’ interest change across grades in Science, Math, Technology, and Engineering subjects.
The means of students’ scores at different grade levels across subjects do not overlap. The smallest mean (2.83) was from 9th graders in engineering while the highest was from (3.80) from 11th graders in science (See Appendix A).
For moving to the inferential statistics stage, the normality of Career Interest survey scores was assessed. The Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that the scores were normally distributed for Technology (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.11) and non-normally distributed for Science (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.035), Math (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.001), and Engineering (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.015). Since scores for the subject of Technology were normally distributed, we conducted one-way ANOVA.
One-way ANOVA results show (Table 1) that there was not a statistically significant difference in Technology scores between grade levels (F(4, 182) = (1.71), p = 0.149).
As seen in Table 2 the only significant group difference is for Math scores (p < 0.05). We did pairwise comparisons to see the differences between the grades for the scores of the Math subject (Table 3).
For Math scores, significant differences are between 7 and 8 (M7 = 3.76; M8 = 3.39), 8–11 (M8 = 3.39; M11 = 3.79), and 9–11 (M9 = 3.50; M11 = 3.79) grades. In other words, in Mathematics subject, 7th graders are significantly more interested in STEM than 8th graders, 11th graders are more interested than both 8 and 9 graders.

3.2. Career Interest According to Gender Groups

Our second research question was: how do students STEM Career Interest change across gender for each STEM subject? In our sample, there are 191 males and 208 females. For this case, we employed t-test in pursuit of our goal.
According to the descriptive statistics of our sample, males’ mean for all subjects are higher than that of females. What is striking is that both females and males lowest mean in engineering (See Appendix B).
According to Shapiro–Wilk test the scores are normally distributed only for Technology (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.133) and non-normal for other subjects; Science (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.029), Math (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.001) and Engineering (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.011). So, for Technology, an independent sample t-test was carried out while for others Mann–Whitney U test was done.
According to Independent Samples, t-test for Technology scores there is no significant effect of gender, t(398) = 1.90, p = 0.058, despite males (M = 3.42, SD = 0.654) attaining higher mean scores than females (M = 3.29, SD = 0.675). For analyzing non-normally distributed scores we constructed Table 4.
For Math and Engineering subjects, scores are significantly different from each other for males and females (pMath = 0.034, pEng = 0.014, respectively). For Math, males have more positive interest than females (Mmale = 3.68; Mfemale = 3.56). Similarly, even though the mean scores are low, for engineering males have more positive interests than females (Mmale = 3.08; Mfemale = 2.88).

3.3. Career Interest According to Number of Siblings

Our third research question was: is there any difference between students’ STEM career interest according to the number of siblings in their families? We categorized the number of siblings in a family as 1–3, 4–5, and over 5.
Students’ interest is changing for all STEM subjects for different numbers of siblings in a family. The smallest mean of our sample corresponds to 1–3 siblings in engineering (2.94) while highest again corresponds to 1–3 siblings (3.67) in science (See Appendix C).
The Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that the scores were not normally distributed for all subjects: Science (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.015), Math (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.001), Technology (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.054), and Engineering (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.002). So, for this case we provided Kruskal–Wallis test (Table 5). Kruskal–Wallis is the nonparametric alternative of ANOVA.
The Kruskal–Wallis test showed no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). Thus, we do not need to go further to detect the differences in students’ interests for the number of siblings groups.

3.4. Correlation between Career Interest and Students’ End of Term Marks

Our fourth research question was: is there any difference between students’ STEM career interest and students’ end of term marks? We searched the relationship between the scores we gathered from the career interest survey and the students’ first semester end term marks of 2021–2022 academic year from the STEM subjects. The correlation results are presented in Table 6.
The significant correlations in Table 6 are in bold text. There is a significant and positive correlation (r = 0.266, p < 0.001; r = 0.143, p < 0.004) between students’ grades in physics and their scores for the response to the Science and Math part of the survey, correspondingly. The Math grades are significantly related to students’ responses to the Science, Math, and Technology sections of the survey. Chemistry grades are positively correlated with students’ responses on the Science, Math and Technology sections of the survey. Students’ biology grades are significantly correlated to Science and Technology scores from the survey. Finally, students’ scores from the engineering items of the survey had no relationship with any STEM subject.

3.5. Career Interest According to Parents’ Occupation and Education

Our fifth research question was: is there any difference between students’ STEM career interest and parents’ occupation? Students’ parents’ jobs were divided into three categories. Students’ scores for these categories across subjects are indicated in Appendix D. The table includes data for fathers and mothers’ jobs separately.
According to the descriptive data, those whose fathers are not working have the highest (3.70) interest score in Science and the lowest score (2.90) is in Engineering which corresponds to students whose fathers are not working. Likewise, the highest (3.74) and lowest (2.92) scores for mothers’ jobs corresponds to mathematics-nonworking mothers, and engineering-mothers working for the government, respectively.
For the fathers’ job scores the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that the scores were normally distributed for the subject of Technology (W(398) = 0.995, p = 0.25) and non-normally distributed for Science (W(398) = 0.992, p = 0.038), Math (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.001), and Engineering (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.002). Since scores for Technology were normally distributed, we conducted One Way ANOVA and for others Kruskal–Wallis test.
For the mothers’ job, the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that the scores were also normally distributed only for the subject of Technology (W(398) = 0.995, p = 0.252) and non-normally distributed for Science (W(398) = 0.991, p = 0.023), Math (W(398) = 0.985, p = 0.001), and Engineering (W(398) = 0.989, p = 0.004).
As seen from Table 7, there is no significant difference in the subject of technology, neither for fathers’ (F(2, 33.3) = (0.423), p = 0.659) nor for mothers’ occupation (F(2, 99.5) = (1.89), p = 0.157). For both cases p > 0.05.
Furthermore, in Table 8, the Kruskal–Wallis test analysis results are shown for Science, Math, and Engineering subjects according to students’ parents’ job occupation.
As seen from Table 8 there is no significant difference for subjects of Science, Math, and Technology neither for Fathers’ nor for Mothers’ occupation. For both cases, p > 0.05.
The second part of our fifth research question was: is there any difference between students’ STEM career interest and parents’ education? Parents’ education was divided into three categories, those who graduated in Natural Sciences (NS), Social Sciences (SS), and Not Graduated (NG) from any university.
Descriptive data (Appendix E) showed that students whose fathers did not graduate from any university have the highest (3.73) interest score in science. Surprisingly, those students whose fathers graduated with Natural Science have the lowest score (2.87) in Engineering. For the case of the students’ mothers’ education, students whose mothers did not graduate from any university have the highest scores (3.71) in Math, whereas, students whose mothers did not graduate from any university and whose mothers graduated in Natural Sciences have the lowest scores (2.93 and 2.94 correspondingly) in Engineering. Inferential statistics regarding parents’ education are presented in Table 9 and Table 10.
According to the fathers’ education, the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that the scores were normally distributed for Science (W(398) = 0.992, p = 0.058) and technology (W(398) = 0.992, p = 0.067) subjects and non-normally distributed for Math (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.001) and Engineering (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.001). Since scores for Science and Technology subjects were normally distributed, we conducted one-way ANOVA and for others Kruskal–Wallis test.
For the mothers’ education, the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that the scores were normally distributed only for the subject of technology (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.085) and non-normally distributed for Science (W(398) = 0.992, p = 0.045), Math (W(398) = 0.998, p = 0.001), and Engineering (W(398) = 0.987, p = 0.002).
As seen from Table 9 there is no significant difference in Technology neither for fathers’ (F(2, 185) = (1.02), p = 0.362) nor for mothers’ (F(2, 176) = (0.162), p = 0.850) education. For both cases p > 0.05. The same situation happened within Science for the fathers’ education, (F(2, 188) = (2.28), p = 0.105), additionally, the p value is more than 0.105.
Table 10 shows the Kruskal–Wallis test analysis for Science, Math, and Engineering subjects according to students’ parents’ education.
Table 10 shows a high value of p (p > 0.05), which means there is no significant difference for Science, Math, and Technology subjects, neither for fathers’ nor for mothers’ education.

3.6. Career Interest According to School Type and Location

Our seventh research question was: is there any difference between students’ STEM career interest and parents’ education? From the descriptive data in Appendix F we can see that according to the school type, the governmental school students (GS) have the highest (3.73) interest score in Math, and the lowest score (2.91) is in Private school (PS) students in Engineering. In the case of school location, the highest (3.74) interest score is from students who study in Village schools (VS) in Science and the lowest score (2.95) is from students who study in the City Schools (CS) in Engineering.
The Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that for the school type the scores were normally distributed only for the subject of Technology (W(398) = 0.995, p = 0.247) and non-normally distributed for Science (W(398) = 0.99, p = 0.007), Math (W(398) = 0.985, p = 0.001), and Engineering (W(398) = 0.989, p = 0.005).
For the location of the school the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated that the scores were normally distributed only for the subject of Technology (W(398) = 0.994, p = 0.103) and non-normally distributed for Science (W(398) = 0.990, p = 0.009), Math (W(398) = 0.985, p = 0.001), and Engineering (W(398) = 0.988, p = 0.002). For normally distributed samples we conducted one-way ANOVA and for the non-normally distributed ones we provided Kruskal–Wallis test.
As seen from Table 11, p value is higher than 0.05 for both the school type (F(4, 138) = (0.836), p = 0.504) and school location (F(2, 80.8) = (1.70), p = 0.189), there is no difference between groups for Technology scores (p > 0.05).
Furthermore, for non-normally distributed data a Kruskal–Wallis (Table 12, Table 13) test was conducted for Science, Math and Engineering scores according to school type and school location.
As seen in Table 12, the significant group differences for school type are in Math and Science scores (p < 0.05) and for the school location only Science scores are significant. Accordingly, we provided pairwise comparisons.
According to the school type for Science scores, significant differences exist between governmental schools and private schools (Mgov.sch = 3.72; Mpriv.sch = 3.28); between special schools for gifted pupils and private schools (MGC = 3.66; Mpriv.sch = 3.28); and between private schools and intellectual schools (Mpriv.sch = 3.28, Mintellect.sch = 3.69). For the Math scores, significant differences are between governmental schools and private schools (Mgov.sch = 3.72; Mpriv.sch = 3.28); and between special schools for gifted pupils and private schools (Mgifted.sch = 3.66; Mpriv.sch = 3.28).
According to the school location for Science scores, significant differences are between village schools and near the city region schools (Mvillage.sch = 3.74; Moutskirt.sch = 3.45).

4. Discussion

4.1. Students’ Grade Level and STEM Career Interest

We found that 7th graders’ interest scores for Math careers were more than that of 8th graders. In Kazakhstan, in grade 7, Science subjects (such as Physics, Chemistry, and Biology) begin to be taught as separate subjects. Up until this grade, these subjects are combined into a single Science subject [47]. At this grade, children begin to become interested in STEM, because they learn about science and technology from a new and in-depth point of view [48]. Our research also yielded interesting results that 11th graders were significantly more interested in Math careers than both 8th and 9th graders. Anderman and Maehr [49] claim that students can gradually change their opinions at this age, especially during adolescence. In the case of Kazakhstan, the reason for this can be as follows: at the end of 11th grade, all Kazakhstani school students take an entrance test to universities. Mathematics is a compulsory component of this test for all respondents, therefore at grade 11, Mathematics becomes one of the most studied subjects [47].
Students’ interest scores from other subjects (Science, Technology and Engineering) did not show any significant differences between grade levels. Koyunlu and Dökme [50] in their study showed that students’ interest in STEM careers change across the grade level only on life sciences, not on the other sub- scales of STEM.

4.2. Students’ Gender and STEM Career Interest

The finding obtained in the current study shows that boys have a more positive interest than girls in Math careers. Similarly, for Engineering, boys have more positive views than girls. Our finding corresponds with findings of Koyunlu and Dökme [50], in their study authors also found that boys studying in secondary school are more interested in STEM than their girl counterparts. The authors relate the lower interest of girls in STEM careers to family stereotype. Almukhambetova and Kuzhabekova [51] in their works made qualitative research about factors affecting Kazakhstani female students to enroll in STEM and came up with findings that there are sociocultural, labor market and regional influences. They found that girls in Kazakhstan are not supported by their family members in their STEM career choice. They claim that the majority of the participants in their study reported that at least one of their family members was against their choice of STEM career. Consistent with the result of Eagly [52], Kazakhstani girls are mostly affected by the stereotype of the sexual division of work, labor, and the gender role expectations. However, Almukhambetova and Kuzhabekova [51] emphasize that schools can positively affect girls’ STEM career choice, by having teachers who are trained in using gender-responsive advising and instructional strategies. They claim that girls are able to do well in STEM fields, because they feel capable to achieve as much as their male peers. This conclusion was made after asking girls about their end of term mark in each STEM subject and their attitude to these subjects. They came up with the conclusion that teachers and parents must motivate girls toward STEM and talk more about successful women in STEM.
Our study showed that for Technology and Science there are no significant differences between gender groups, all respondents have a positive attitude for technology and Science. This may be because of increasing numbers of women in Science and Technology over recent decades [53]. Nowadays, with the development of the internet and social media Kazakhstani middle and high school girls are aware of that and they have equal chances as their boy counterparts in science and technology [51]. However, Rosser [53] claims that maintaining balances between career and family, time management, maintaining trust and respectability from colleagues of women in science are still associated with problems related to social status of the woman and stereotypical beliefs.

4.3. Students’ Family Size and STEM Career Interest

Family plays a big role in students’ career interest [54,55]. Schulenberg et al. [56] reported that family size can influence adolescent career choice, big families usually have less finance to aid the older children in attending higher education, when younger children may receive more financial support since the financial need is less once older children leave home.
Black et al. [57] found negative correlation between family size and children’s education, they also emphasize that higher birth order has a significant and large negative effect on children’s education. Lloyd [58] also claims that the relationship between family size and children’s education is negative in most Asian countries. In our study, we tried to search if there is a relationship between family size and STEM career interest. Our results showed that there are no significant differences between these groups. Our study results correspond with the results of Ali et al. [59], in their study authors examined the opinions of 200 university students in Pakistan and their results show that family size does not play any role in students’ career choice.

4.4. Students’ End of Term Marks and STEM Career Interest

The current study showed that there is a significant and positive correlation between students’ grades in Physics and their scores for the response to the science and Math part of the survey, respectively. The Math grades are significantly related to students’ responses in the Science, Math, and Technology sections of the survey. Chemistry grades are positively correlated with students’ responses in the Science, Math, and Technology sections of the survey. Students’ biology grades are significantly correlated to Science and Technology scores from the survey. Finally, students’ scores from the Engineering items of the survey had no relationship with any STEM subject. Overall, it is shown that students’ end of term marks have positive correlation with students’ STEM career interest [50,60]. Dabney et al. [61] emphasizes academic achievements of students as one of the main factors which stimulate youth interests toward STEM careers, as well as their self-belief and interest in science [62]. According to Rittmayer and Beier [63], students with high academic achievement will motivate themselves to set challenging goals; strive to achieve them and are most interested to choose STEM as their future career. Additionally, students who have been involved in STEM since their school years are able to anticipate academic achievement beyond past achievement because students who feel confident in STEM are more inspired to succeed [63].

4.5. Students’ Parents’ Occupations, Educations, and STEM Career Interest

All parents want a bright future, a secure and luxurious career for their children. Since parents want their children to be successful, they also become depressed if their children choose the wrong career. That is why parents do everything possible to find a worthy profession for their children [64].
Despite the fact that many studies suggest that parents play a huge role in students career choice [65,66], the result of our study showed that there is no significant difference between groups for STEM subjects neither for fathers’ nor for mothers’ job occupation and education. Our results are consistent with findings of [67,68]. Lichtenberger and George-Jackson [69] suggest that family awareness of STEM careers and their conscious efforts to increase their children’s interest and skills in STEM fields have a greater influence on their children’s career choices than their education and socio-economic level. This finding was also confirmed by Nugent et al. [70]. Chachashvili-Bolotin et al. [71] found that the parents’ education highly affects students’ interest in studying at the university, but not for the choice or the direction of study.

4.6. Schools Type and Location and STEM Career Interest

In our sample, there is no difference between groups for technology scores, according to school type and school location. For Science scores, according to the school type: students of special schools for gifted pupils, governmental school students and intellectual school students have a more positive attitude to STEM careers than private school students. For the Math scores: students of special schools for gifted pupils and governmental school students have a more positive attitude to STEM careers than private school students. From these findings we can conclude that students from schools which are financially supported by the government have a more positive attitude to STEM careers than students who study in paid schools, because in Kazakhstan all private schools are paid schools. This may be according to the economic status of students’ parents. Students who are studying at private schools in Kazakhstan can be related to the higher economic status of families, because in Kazakhstan tuition payment for private schools can vary from USD 250 to 1000 per month while the living wage in Kazakhstan is USD 78.72 per month [72]. Students who are studying in private schools prefer a future career: business, entrepreneurship, law, finance, etc., rather than STEM [73,74,75]. This finding was also confirmed in some other papers [68,69], they found that economically disadvantaged students tended to have more trust in STEM majors, more than their high-income counterparts.
According to the school location for science scores, significant differences are between villages schools and near the city region schools. Village school students have a more positive attitude to STEM careers than near city region school students. This result is consistent with results of Chachashvili et al. [71], they found those students who live in a village have more interest in STEM careers. Peterson et al. [76] explained this relation in their work as rural communities believe that STEM education can solve some of their very difficult economic and social problems, therefore most rural students are interested in STEM careers [76,77].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study shows the factors which may affect middle and high schools’ interest toward STEM as a choice for their future career. The results of the currents study is relevant for the case of Kazakhstan, since very few researchers studied STEM education in Kazakhstan. In this study, we tried to cover broad factors that may affect students’ STEM career interest and our findings were consistent with results of other researchers in different countries. Generally, all inquired students’ interest about STEM careers were positive. In particular, boys and girls responses were equally positive in many sub-scales of STEM-CIS. Additionally, great interest to STEM career were shown by village students, whereas private school students’, who are living in the city, STEM career interests were the lowest in our sample. We also found that students’ family size, parents’ education, and job occupation does not relate students’ STEM career interest.
According to the growing interest toward STEM in Kazakhstan our findings may be helpful for researchers in their further in-depth study, educational policy makers, and curriculum developers during implementing STEM programs into curriculum.
As the limitation of our study, we can report about sample size, data were collected from about 400 students. Small sample size may deflect the real picture of the study. Additionally, since surveys were provided online, some students could make arbitrary choices while answering. As quantitative research results may not give in-depth results, we suggest for other researchers to provide qualitative study.

Author Contributions

Data curation, Z.N. and S.O.; methodology, N.J. and N.B.; writing—original draft preparation, N.J. and A.P.; writing—review and editing, N.B.; supervision, N.J.; project administration, Z.N. and S.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Suleyman Demirel University (#5, 11 April 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be provided upon request. Any reader can request the data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Career Interest According to Grade Levels

Table A1. Descriptive statistics for participants’, STEM—CIS, scores regarding their grade levels.
Table A1. Descriptive statistics for participants’, STEM—CIS, scores regarding their grade levels.
GradeNMeanSD GradeNMeanSD
Science7943.630.612Technology7943.340.694
8823.520.590 8823.220.608
9503.570.503 9503.320.592
10973.600.653 10973.450.649
11763.800.663 11763.410.748
Math7943.760.621Engineering7942.980.751
8823.390.622 8822.920.730
9503.500.491 9502.830.704
10973.600.691 10972.930.828
11763.790.713 11763.200.919

Appendix B. Career Interest According to Gender Groups

Table A2. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding gender groups.
Table A2. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding gender groups.
GenderNMeanSD GenderNMeanSD
Science Male 191 3.65 3.64 Technology Male 191 3.42 3.45
Female 208 3.60 3.64 Female 208 3.29 3.27
Math Male 191 3.68 3.73 Engineering Male 191 3.08 3.00
Female 208 3.56 3.64 Female 208 2.88 2.82

Appendix C. Career Interest According to Number of Siblings

Table A3. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding the number of siblings in families.
Table A3. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding the number of siblings in families.
Number of Siblings in Families N Mean SD Number of Siblings in Families NMeanSD
Science 1–3 214 3.67 0.597 Technology 1–3 214 3.35 0.650
4–5 156 3.60 0.656 4–5 156 3.36 0.705
More than 5 29 3.39 0.533 More than 5 29 3.33 0.595
Math 1–3 214 3.60 0.634 Engineering 1–3 214 2.94 0.803
4–5 156 3.67 0.698 4–5 156 3.02 0.829
More than 5 29 3.49 0.604 More than 5 29 3.03 0.591

Appendix D. Career Interest According to Parents’ Occupation

Table A4. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding parents’ occupation.
Table A4. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding parents’ occupation.
Father’s
Job Occupation
NMeanSD Mother’s
Job Occupation
NMeanSD
ScienceGW 198 3.62 0.618 ScienceGW 276 3.61 0.615
SA 160 3.61 0.622 SA 54 3.62 0.627
NW 13 3.70 0.547 NW 62 3.63 0.660
MathGW 198 3.58 0.650 MathGW 276 3.57 0.675
SA 160 3.67 0.646 SA 54 3.72 0.579
NW 13 3.67 0.547 NW 62 3.74 0.626
TechnologyGW 198 3.32 0.672 TechnologyGW 276 3.31 0.646
SA 160 3.39 0.666 SA 54 3.52 0.778
NW 13 3.36 0.626 NW 62 3.38 0.628
EngineeringGW 198 3.00 0.828 EngineeringGW 276 2.92 0.784
SA 160 2.98 0.803 SA 54 3.11 0.893
NW 13 2.90 0.601 NW 62 3.12 0.786

Appendix E. Career Interest According to Parents’ Education

Table A5. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding parents’ education.
Table A5. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding parents’ education.
Father’s
Education
NMeanSD Mother’s
Education
NMeanSD
Science NS 85 3.53 0.627 Science NS 134 3.59 0.666
SS 180 3.62 0.614 SS 177 3.69 0.532
NG 96 3.73 0.629 NG 70 3.66 0.682
Math NS 85 3.55 0.622 Math NS 134 3.63 0.674
SS 180 3.63 0.652 SS 177 3.61 0.611
NG 96 3.69 0.668 NG 70 3.71 0.728
Technology NS 85 3.24 0.729 Technology NS 134 3.35 0.691
SS 180 3.37 0.653 SS 177 3.38 0.629
NG 96 3.38 0.654 NG 70 3.32 0.731
Engineering NS 85 2.87 0.840 Engineering NS 134 2.94 0.818
SS 180 3.03 0.783 SS 177 3.03 0.783
NG 96 3.01 0.825 NG 70 2.93 0.831

Appendix F. Career Interest According to School Type and Location

Table A6. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding school type and location.
Table A6. Descriptive statistics for participants’ STEM—CIS scores regarding school type and location.
School Type NMeanSD School
Location
NMeanSD
Science GS 56 3.72 0.604 ScienceVS 55 3.74 0.580
SSGCh 150 3.66 0.610 CS 303 3.62 0.636
PS 39 3.28 0.456 NCRS 41 3.45 0.509
G 47 3.52 0.721
IS 107 3.69 0.606
Math GS 56 3.73 0.588 MathVS 55 3.72 0.575
SSGCh 150 3.69 0.662 CS 303 3.61 0.690
PS 39 3.40 0.542 NCRS 41 3.56 0.496
G 47 3.56 0.735
IS 107 3.57 0.675
Technology GS 56 3.28 0.661 TechnologyVS 55 3.25 0.664
SSGCh 150 3.37 0.683 CS 303 3.38 0.675
PS 39 3.24 0.540 NCRS 41 3.24 0.595
G 47 3.33 0.674
IS 107 3.42 0.688
Engineering GS 56 3.09 0.859 EngineeringVS 55 3.08 0.827
SSGCh 150 2.96 0.820 CS 303 2.95 0.809
PS 39 2.91 0.682 NCRS 41 3.06 0.686
G 47 2.96 0.936
IS 107 2.98 0.718

References

  1. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Drymiotou, I.; Constantinou, C.P.; Avraamidou, L. Enhancing Students’ Interest in Science and Understandings of STEM Careers: The Role of Career-Based Scenarios. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2021, 43, 717–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Creswell, J.W. 30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gago, J.M.; Ziman, J.; Caro, P.; Constantinou, C.P.; Davies, G.R.; Parchmann, I.; Rannikmae, M.; Sjoberg, S. Europe Needs More Scientists: Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. In Report by the High Level Expert Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe; European Commission: Brussel, Belgium, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  5. Potvin, P.; Hasni, A. Interest, Motivation and Attitude towards Science and Technology at K-12 Levels: A Systematic Review of 12 Years of Educational Research. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2014, 50, 85–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Yavich, R.; Davidovitch, N. Teachers’ Attitudes to Use of Advanced Technological Tools as Teaching and Learning Aids: From an Inter-Generational Perspective. Eur. Educ. Res. 2021, 4, 329–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kitts, K. The Paradox of Middle and High School Students’ Attitudes towards Science versus Their Attitudes about Science as a Career. J. Geosci. Educ. 2009, 57, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baram-Tsabari, A.; Yarden, A. Quantifying the Gender Gap in Science Interests. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2011, 9, 523–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kier, M.W.; Blanchard, M.R.; Osborne, J.W.; Albert, J.L. The Development of the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS). Res. Sci. Educ. 2014, 44, 461–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Christidou, V. Interest, Attitudes and Images Related to Science: Combining Students’ Voices with the Voices of School Science, Teachers, and Popular Science. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2011, 6, 141–159. [Google Scholar]
  11. Finson, K.D. Drawing a Scientist: What We Do and Do Not Know after Fifty Years of Drawings. Sch. Sci. Math. 2002, 102, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rubin, D.C.; Berntsen, D. Life Scripts Help to Maintain Autobiographical Memories of Highly Positive, but Not Highly Negative, Events. Mem. Cognit. 2003, 31, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Ward, A. Magician in a white coat. Sci. Act. 1977, 14, 6–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Capobianco, B.M.; Diefes-dux, H.A.; Mena, I.; Weller, J. What Is an Engineer? Implications of Elementary School Student Conceptions for Engineering Education. J. Eng. Educ. 2011, 100, 304–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fralick, B.; Kearn, J.; Thompson, S.; Lyons, J. How Middle Schoolers Draw Engineers and Scientists. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2009, 18, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Samaras, G.; Bonoti, F.; Christidou, V. Exploring Children’s Perceptions of Scientists through Drawings and Interviews. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 46, 1541–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. She, H.-C. Gender and Grade Level Differences in Taiwan Students’ Stereotypes of Science and Scientists. Res. Sci. technol. educ. 1998, 16, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Archer, L.; DeWitt, J.; Dillon, J. It Didn’t Really Change My Opinion: Exploring What Works, What Doesn’t and Why in a School Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Careers Intervention. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2014, 32, 35–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. DeWitt, J.; Archer, L.; Osborne, J. Nerdy, Brainy and Normal: Children’s and Parents’ Constructions of Those Who Are Highly Engaged with Science. Res. Sci. Educ. 2013, 43, 1455–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, L.; Barnett, M. How High School Students Envision Their STEM Career Pathways. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2015, 10, 637–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mim, S.A. Women Missing in STEM Careers: A Critical Review through the Gender Lens. J. Res. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 2019, 2, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dogan, S.; Spahiu, E. Engaging Students in Science Using Project Olympiads: A Case Study in Bosnia and Herzegovina. J. Res. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 2021, 4, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tzu-Ling, H. Gender Differences in High-School Learning Experiences, Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Career Aspirations among Taiwanese STEM College Students. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2019, 41, 1870–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Luo, T.; Wang, J.; Liu, X.; Zhou, J. Development and Application of a Scale to Measure Students’ STEM Continuing Motivation. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2019, 41, 1885–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kimmel, L.G.; Miller, J.D.; Eccles, J.S. Do the Paths to STEMM Professions Differ by Gender? Peabody J. Educ. 2012, 87, 92–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Scantlebury, K.; Baker, D. Gender Issues in Science Education Research: Remembering Where the Difference Lies. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Abell, S., Lederman, N., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 257–286. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dubrovskiy, A.V.; Broadway, S.; Weber, R.; Mason, D.; Jang, B.; Mamiya, B.; Powell, C.B.; Shelton, G.R.; Walker, D.R.; Williamson, V.M.; et al. Is the STEM Gender Gap Closing? J. Res. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 2022, 5, 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, J.; Judy, J. Choosing a STEM Path: Course-Sequencing in High School and Postsecondary Outcomes. In Proceedings of the SREE Fall 2011 Conference, Evanston, IL, USA, 1 December 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zacharia, Z.; Barton, A.C. Urban Middle-School Students’ Attitudes toward a Defined Science. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 197–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hanson, S.L. Swimming Against the Tide: Philadelphia; Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009; Volume 224. [Google Scholar]
  31. Frisch, J.K.; Jackson, P.C.; Murray, M.C. Transforming Undergraduate Biology Learning with Inquiry-Based Instruction. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2018, 30, 211–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sperandeo-Mineo, R.M.; Fazio, C.; Tarantino, G. Pedagogical Content Knowledge Development and Pre-Service Physics Teacher Education: A Case Study”. Res. Sci. Educ 2006, 36, 235–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Greenfield, T.A. Gender- and Grade-Level Differences in Science Interest and Participation. Sci. Educ. 1997, 81, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sahin, A.; Texas A&M University; Ayar, M.C.; Adiguzel, T. STEM Related After-School Program Activities and Associated Outcomes on Student Learning. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2013, 14, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Sjaastad, J. Sources of Inspiration: The Role of Significant Persons in Young People’s Choice of Science in Higher Education. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34, 1615–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Whitfield, A.; Feller, R.; Wood, C. A Counselor’s Guide to Career Assessment Instruments; National Career Development Association: Broken Arrow, OK, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tang, M.; Pan, W.; Newmeyer, M. Factors Influencing High School Students’ Career Aspirations. Prof. Sch. Couns. 2008, 11, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bowdich, S. Analysis of Research Exploring Culturally Responsive Curricula in Hawaii. In Proceedings of the Hawaii Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 7 February 2009. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tyler-Wood, T.; Knezek, G.; Christensen, R. Instruments for Assessing Interest in STEM Content and Careers. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2010, 18, 341–363. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D.; Hackett, G. Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance. J. Vocat. Behav. 1994, 45, 79–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fouad, N.A.; Smith, P.L.; Enochs, L. Reliability and Validity Evidence for the Middle School Self-Efficacy Scale. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 1997, 30, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Baldwin, J.A.; Ebert-May, D.; Burns, D.J. The Development of a College Biology Self-Efficacy Instrument for Non-Majors. Sci. Educ. 1999, 83, 397–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stone, D.L.; Johnson, R.D.; Stone-Romero, E.F.; Navas, D. Hispanic American and Anglo American Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions to Pursue Careers in Information Technology. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Industrial Organizational/Organizational Behavior (IOOB) Conference, Indialantic, FL, USA, 19 March 2008. [Google Scholar]
  45. Erbolovna, T.Z.; Kokenovna, A.S.; Adilkylovna, M.M.; Sarsenbaevna, Z.A. Development of STEM-Education in the World and Kazakhstan. Sci. Res. 2019, 1, 77–79. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tyulyubayeva, G.S.; Ustelimova, N.A. Current Situation and Prospects for the Development of Steam Education in Kazakhstan. In Proceedings of the “Междунарoдные Научные Чтения Имени Лауреата Нoбелевскoй Премии П.Л. Капицы”, Petrozavodsk, Russia, 9 December 2021. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Unified National Testing. Available online: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/edu?lang=ru (accessed on 24 January 2022).
  48. Christensen, R.; Knezek, G. Relationship of Middle School Student STEM Interest to Career Intent. J. Educ. Environ. Sci. Health 2016, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Anderman, E.M.; Maehr, M.L. Motivation and Schooling in the Middle Grades. Rev. Educ. Res. 1994, 64, 287–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Koyunlu Ünlü, Z.; Dökme, İ. Multivariate Assessment of Middle School Students’ Interest in STEM Career: A Profile from Turkey. Res. Sci. Educ. 2020, 50, 1217–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Almukhambetova, A.; Kuzhabekova, A. Factors Affecting the Decision of Female Students to Enrol in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Majors in Kazakhstan. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2020, 42, 934–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Eagly, A.H. Reporting Sex Differences. Am. Psychol. 1987, 42, 755–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rosser, S.V. Breaking into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in Science and Technology. Int. J. Gend. Sci. Technol. 2018, 10, 213–232. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ellington, R.M.; Frederick, R. Black High-Achieving Undergraduate Mathematics Majors Discuss Success and Persistence in Mathematics. Negro Educ. Rev. 2010, 61, 61–84. [Google Scholar]
  55. Moore, J.L., III. A Qualitative Investigation of African American Males’ Career Trajectory in Engineering: Implications for Teachers, School Counselors, and Parents. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2006, 108, 246–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schulenberg, J.E.; Vondracek, F.W.; Crouter, A.C. The Influence of the Family on Vocational Development. J. Marriage Fam. 1984, 46, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Black, S.E.; Devereux, P.J.; Salvanes, K.G. The More the Merrier? The Effect of Family Size and Birth Order on Children’s Education. Q. J. Econ. 2005, 120, 669–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Lloyd, C.B. Investing in the Next Generation: The Implications of High Fertility at the Level of the Family; Overseas Development Council: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ali, A.; Ahsan, S.; Dziegielewski, S.F. Social and Family Capital and Youth Career Intension: A Case Study in Pakistan. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2017, 4, 1362838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ing, M. Gender Differences in the Influence of Early Perceived Parental Support on Student Mathematics and Science Achievement and Stem Career Attainment. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2014, 12, 1221–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dabney, K.P.; Tai, R.H.; Almarode, J.T.; Miller-Friedmann, J.L.; Sonnert, G.; Sadler, P.M.; Hazari, Z. Out-of-School Time Science Activities and Their Association with Career Interest in STEM. Int. J. Sci. Educ. B 2012, 2, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Simpkins, S.D.; Davis-Kean, P.E.; Eccles, J.S. Math and Science Motivation: A Longitudinal Examination of the Links between Choices and Beliefs. Dev. Psychol. 2006, 42, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rittmayer, A.D.; Beier, M.E. Overview: Self-Efficacy in STEM. SWE-AWE CASEE Overviews. J. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 76, 647–658. [Google Scholar]
  64. Bratcher, W.E. The Influence of the Family on Career Selection: A Family Systems Perspective. Pers. Guid. J. 1982, 61, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Saleem, N.; Mian, A.; Saleem, H.I.; Rao, M.S. Career Selection: Role of Parent’s Profession Mass Media and Personal Choice. Bull. Educ. Res. 2014, 36, 25–37. [Google Scholar]
  66. Jodl, K.M.; Michael, A.; Malanchuk, O.; Jacquelynne, S.; Eccles, J.S.; Sameroff, A. Parents Role in Shaping Early Adolescents’ Occupational Aspirations. Student’s. Development 2001, 72, 1247–1266. [Google Scholar]
  67. Chen, P.D.; Simpson, P.A. Does Personality Matter? Applying Holland’s Typology to Analyze Students’ Self-Selection into Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Majors. J. Higher Educ. 2015, 86, 725–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. George-Jackson, C.E.; Lichtenberger, E.J. College Confidence: How Sure High School Students Are of Their Future Majors. Illinois Education Research Council. Policy Res. 2012, 2. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lichtenberger, E.; George-Jackson, C. Predicting High School Students’ Interest in Majoring in a STEM Field: Insight into High School Students’ Postsecondary Plans. J. Career Tech. Educ. 2012, 28, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nugent, G.; Barker, B.; Welch, G.; Grandgenett, N.; Wu, C.; Nelson, C. A Model of Factors Contributing to STEM Learning and Career Orientation. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 37, 1067–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chachashvili-Bolotin, S.; Milner-Bolotin, M.; Lissitsa, S. Examination of Factors Predicting Secondary Students’ Interest in Tertiary STEM Education. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2016, 38, 366–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Forbes.kz How Much Does a Private School in Almaty Cost and Why So Much? Available online: https://forbes.kz/process/education/skolko_stoit_chastnaya_shkola_v_almatyi_i_pochemu_tak_dorogo/ (accessed on 30 May 2019).
  73. Wang, C.K.; Wong, P.-K. Entrepreneurial Interest of University Students in Singapore. Technovation 2004, 24, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Thompson, M.N.; Subich, L.M. The Relation of Social Status to the Career Decision-Making Process. J. Vocat. Behav. 2006, 69, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hossain, M.E.; Siddique, T. Career Preference of Business Graduate in Bangladesh: A Case Study of Some Selected Private Universities. Asian Bus. Rev. 2015, 1, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Peterson, B.; Bornemann, G.; Lydon, C.; West, K. Rural Students in Washington State: STEM as a Strategy for Building Rigor, Postsecondary Aspirations, and Relevant Career Opportunities. Peabody J. Educ. 2015, 90, 280–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Grimes, L.E.; Arrastía-Chisholm, M.A.; Bright, S.B. How Can They Know What They Don’t Know? The Beliefs and Experiences of Rural School Counselors about STEM Career Advising. Theory Pract. Rural. Educ. 2019, 9, 74–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. The results of one-way ANOVA for technology.
Table 1. The results of one-way ANOVA for technology.
Fdf1df2p
Technology1.7141820.149
Table 2. Kruskal–Wallis test results for participants’ scores in Science, Math, and Engineering part of the survey.
Table 2. Kruskal–Wallis test results for participants’ scores in Science, Math, and Engineering part of the survey.
Χ2dfpε2
Science8.6540.0700.021
Math27.514<0.0010.069
Engineering5.8540.2100.014
Table 3. Pairwise comparisons—students’ response to Math subject.
Table 3. Pairwise comparisons—students’ response to Math subject.
Math
Grades WpGrades Wp
78−6.119<0.0018103.7090.066
79−3.6730.0718115.988<0.001
710−1.7740.7199101.9570.638
7110.9660.9609114.2540.022
892.2100.52210112.5260.382
Table 4. Mann–Whitney U test results for the gender groups.
Table 4. Mann–Whitney U test results for the gender groups.
StatisticpEffect Size
ScienceMann–Whitney U18,7620.3380.0555
MathMann–Whitney U17,4300.0340.1226
EngineeringMann–Whitney U17,0300.0140.1427
Table 5. Kruskal–Wallis test results for the number of siblings.
Table 5. Kruskal–Wallis test results for the number of siblings.
Χ2dfpε2
Science6.06220.0480.01523
Math3.83020.1470.00962
Technology0.56720.7530.00142
engineering1.18820.5520.00299
Table 6. Correlation matrix for the relationships between career interest and students’ grades.
Table 6. Correlation matrix for the relationships between career interest and students’ grades.
Response in ScienceResponse in MathResponse in TechnologyResponse in
Engineering
Marks in PhysicsPearson’s r0.2660.1430.0820.038
p-value<0.0010.0040.1010.447
Marks in MathPearson’s r0.2720.2910.1140.084
p-value<0.001<0.0010.0230.094
Marks in ChemistryPearson’s r0.1880.1080.106−0.024
p-value<0.0010.0310.0340.628
Marks in BiologyPearson’s r0.1550.0580.1080.018
p-value0.0020.2480.0310.720
Table 7. The results of one-way ANOVA for the parents’ occupation.
Table 7. The results of one-way ANOVA for the parents’ occupation.
Fathers’ OccupationFdf1df2pMothers’ OccupationFdf1df2p
Technology0.423233.30.659Technology1.89299.50.157
Table 8. Kruskal–Wallis test results for the parents’ occupation.
Table 8. Kruskal–Wallis test results for the parents’ occupation.
Fathers’
Occupation
Χ2dfpε2Mothers’
Occupation
Χ2dfpε2
Science0.80920.6670.002Science0.09520.9540.0002
Math1.70720.4260.004Math5.23820.0730.013
Engineering0.27920.8700.0007Engineering3.86520.1450.009
Table 9. The Results of One-Way ANOVA for the parents’ education.
Table 9. The Results of One-Way ANOVA for the parents’ education.
Fathers’
Education
Fdf1df2pMothers’
Education
Fdf1df2p
Science 2.2821880.105Technology0.16221760.850
Technology1.0221850.362
Table 10. Kruskal–Wallis test results for the parents’ education.
Table 10. Kruskal–Wallis test results for the parents’ education.
Fathers’
Education
Χ2dfpε2Mothers’
Education
Χ2dfpε2
Math2.8220.2440.007Science2.40720.3000.0063
Engineering3.0120.2220.008Math1.37520.5030.0036
Engineering1.73620.4200.0046
Table 11. The results of one-way ANOVA for the school type and location.
Table 11. The results of one-way ANOVA for the school type and location.
School TypeFdf1df2pSchool LocationFdf1df2p
Technology0.83641380.504Technology1.70280.80.189
Table 12. Kruskal–Wallis test results for the school type and location.
Table 12. Kruskal–Wallis test results for the school type and location.
School TypeΧ2dfpε2School LocationΧ2dfpε2
Science20.404<0.0010.0513Science6.2520.0440.0157
Math11.2140.0240.0282Math2.6920.2610.0068
engineering 1.5540.8170.0039engineering 1.3820.5020.0035
Table 13. Pairwise comparisons—students’ response to Math and Science subjects.
Table 13. Pairwise comparisons—students’ response to Math and Science subjects.
School Type School Location
ScienceWpMathWpScienceWp
GSGC−1.0440.948GSGC−0.5650.995VSCS −1.960.348
GSPS−5.757<0.001GSPS−3.9730.040VSNS−3.670.025
GSG−1.8280.696GSG−1.9520.641CSNS−2.590.159
GSIS−0.6580.990GSIS−2.3420.462
GCPS−5.675<0.001GCPS−4.0930.031
GCG−1.3290.882GCG−1.9430.645
GCIS0.5030.997GCIS−2.3430.461
PSG2.9870.215PSG1.4380.848
PSIS5.720<0.001PSIS2.0070.615
GIS1.6560.768GIS0.0221.000
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Japashov, N.; Naushabekov, Z.; Ongarbayev, S.; Postiglione, A.; Balta, N. STEM Career Interest of Kazakhstani Middle and High School Students. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 397. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/educsci12060397

AMA Style

Japashov N, Naushabekov Z, Ongarbayev S, Postiglione A, Balta N. STEM Career Interest of Kazakhstani Middle and High School Students. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(6):397. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/educsci12060397

Chicago/Turabian Style

Japashov, Nursultan, Zhomart Naushabekov, Samat Ongarbayev, Adriana Postiglione, and Nuri Balta. 2022. "STEM Career Interest of Kazakhstani Middle and High School Students" Education Sciences 12, no. 6: 397. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/educsci12060397

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop