Motivation Factors of Students to Enroll in STE

Program

Review of Related Literature

Motivation Factors of Students to Enroll

According to the Statistics of the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (2010),

motivation is a dynamic and complex process of internal psychological factors. The
needs, wants, and goals of an individual is a key element of students' choice of decision
to enroll at an institution. There is a significant body of empirical work on students'
motivations, and the literature records a variety of motivational factors concerning
students' motivations. In addition, having the push-pull model are both external forces
that impact a student's choices and behavior, but a student's decisions are also
influenced by their persona (Li and Bray, 2015).

STE Program

In relation to the DepEd Order No. 55, series of 2010, the Department of
Education commits itself to the development of the full potential of students in all areas.
Various programs and projects have been implemented to realize its goal. One of its
thrusts is to produce quality learners in the field of Science and Technology. In this
regard, Special Curricular Program in Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) has
been offered, envisions highly responsible, morally upright, globally competitive, and
work-ready learners. This program aims to widen access to quality secondary education
with the vision to develop learners with the interest and aptitude for careers in or for
higher learning in Science, Technology, and Engineering.

In addition, as part of its continuing initiatives to strengthen the teaching of

Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) in primary education, the Department of
Education (DepEd) is providing financial support. According to DepEd Order No. 38
series of 2013, DepEd shall support the program by providing financial assistance to
public secondary schools implementing the STE program, which used to be known as
the Engineering and Science Education Program (ESEP) when it was piloted in 1994 by
the Department of Science & Technology (DOST).

Motivation Factors in Students Decision to Study at International

Branch Campuses in Malaysia

Syed Zamberi Ahmad et al. (2017). Transnational education is becoming a

popular way for students to earn an attractive credential from a foreign university in
emerging education hubs in Asia. In an era where students are staying closer to home
for their education, their paper offers insights into the motivations or choice criteria used
by students currently enrolled at international branch campuses in Malaysia. Findings
from a survey of 218 undergraduate and postgraduate students plus semi-structured
qualitative interviews conducted with 18 students indicated that the motivations for
studying at an international branch campus are a function of the combined pull–push
factors (i.e. institution and academic reputations, marketability of the degree, low tuition
fees compared to home institution, low cost of living, safe country for study, similarity of
education systems as well as cultural proximity). The study proposes a model of student
destination and institution choices based primarily upon ‘push’ factors which apply to
international branch campuses in Malaysia. The success of a given university operating
in a foreign market is shown to be influenced greatly by the destination's costs,
attractiveness attributes, and locational convenience for students. The findings of the
paper are especially relevant to developing market policy-makers of higher education in
crafting specific management and marketing strategies targeting students to study at
international branch campuses, particularly in Malaysia.

Analyzing Motivational Factors of Elementary Gifted Students Related

to Reading Growth

Loeri Poelking (2018) In the experience of this researcher teachers at caring schools
often fail to plan lessons with students' learning preferences in mind. They employ a
qualitative questionnaire to help them guide the predominantly learning style(s) of gifted
students on achievement and motivation to learn. In September 2016, an identified
gifted student in third, fourth, and fifth grades answered survey questions in both open
formats/free response as well as on a 1-4 Likert scale. Students in this study are labeled
"gifted" after achieving in the 95th percentile or higher in both math and reading on
standardized testing with an IQ over 130. To sum up everything, this study could
potentially be used to plan professional development for all teachers at this school
related to lesson planning to include student learning styles and choices.

Teachers’ Motivating Style and Students’ Motivation and Engagement

in STEM: the Relationship Between Three Key Educational Concepts
(Bøe, Henriksen, Lyons, & Schreiner, 2011; Pinxten et al., 2017)A key theme in the
science education literature concerns the reluctance of students to participate in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Self-determination theory states
that social factors in an educational setting, such as teachers’ motivating style, can
influence students’ motivation and engagement. This paper investigates the relationship
between STEM teachers’ motivating style (autonomy support, provision of structure,
involvement) and students’ motivation and engagement with regard to STEM.
Furthermore, the relationship between students’ motivation and students’ engagement
is investigated. Thirty classroom observations were conducted in different STEM
lessons, to assess teachers’ motivating style and students’ engagement. The students’
motivation was assessed at the end of the school year, using an online questionnaire.
The results reveal that STEM teachers’ provision of structure is positively linked to
students’ motivation and engagement with regard to STEM subjects. The impact of
teachers’ autonomy support was negatively predictive for students’ autonomous
motivation, and positively predictive for students’ engagement. A negative relationship
between students’ controlled motivation and engagement was found. Based on these
results, this study suggests that taking teachers’ motivating style into account in future
educational initiatives regarding STEM is highly relevant as a means of stimulating
students’ motivation and engagement.

Author:Peter Van Petegem

Date:September, 2021

Title of the article:Teachers’ Motivating Style and Students’ Motivation and Engagement
in STEM: the Relationship Between Three Key Educational Concepts

Site:Research gate.net

Identifying Motivational Factors for Enrolling in a Doctor of Nursing

Practice Program

Hunker, D.et al., (2018) For a variety of reasons, students enroll in Doctor of Nursing
Practice (DNP) programs. Nurse educators must have a grasp of motivational factors in
order to address student engagement strategies at the start of the program in order to
enhance retention and success in finishing a DNP program. The outcomes of a
descriptive study on newly accepted students' motivational factors for pursuing DNP
education are presented in this article. Newly admitted DNP students at a university in
western Pennsylvania were given a 20-item online survey. Eight demographic questions
and 12 statements representing six intrinsic and six extrinsic motivational factors were
included in the study. Intrinsic motivating factors were found to have a modest
advantage over extrinsic motivational factors. Longevity of job, experience, length of
time considering enrolling, and motivational factors all have relationships. Cultivating
intrinsic motivation upon program entry may have a significant impact on DNP students'
engagement, retention, and program completion.

Motivation, achievement, and advanced

placement intent of high school students
learning science
(Robert R. Bryan,Shawn M. Glynn; 25 July 2011)
Within the framework of social cognitive theory, we examined the motivation of students
(14–16 years old) to learn science in their introductory science courses.
The students also wrote essays about their motivation, and individual interviews were
conducted with a representative sample of students.
We found that the students' intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, self-determination, and
achievement were related. Consistent with social cognitive theory, self-efficacy was the
motivation factor most related to achievement.
The Advanced Placement Program aspirants were higher than nonaspirants in intrinsic
motivation, self-efficacy, self-determination, and achievement. Patterns in students'
essays and interviews identified inspiring teachers, career interests,and collaborative-
learning activities as strong motivators. The findings suggest that science teachers
should use social modeling and collaborative-learning activities to foster students'
motivation, achievement, AP intent, and interest in science careers.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE STE EDUCATION AND TOOLS IN MOTIVATING

STUDENTS TO ENROLL IN STE PROGRAMS

Adrienne McQuown Elementary Gifted Support Teacher Central Cambria School District
Masters in Teaching Marygrove College April, 2011

An effective science and technology/engineering program develops students’ ability to apply

their knowledge and skills to analyze and explain the world around them.

Students are naturally curious and motivated to know more about the world in which they live.
Asking questions about everyday phenomena, issues, and how things work can provide rich science
learning opportunities for all students. Real applications of science—and rapid developments in STE
fields such as biotechnology, clean energy, medicine, forensics, agriculture, or robotics—can
promote student interest and demonstrate how the core ideas in science are applied in real-world
contexts. Connecting the domains of STE with one another and with mathematical study, and to
applications in the world, helps students apply, transfer, and adapt their learning to new situations
and problems.

An effective science and technology/engineering program addresses students’ prior

knowledge and preconceptions.

Students are innately curious about the world and wonder how things work. Instruction that
addresses something students may wonder about or a discrepant event can inspire them to search
for evidence and analyze information, to develop a reasonable explanation. Students’ natural
curiosity provides one entry point for learning experiences designed to address students’
preconceptions in STE. Advancing student learning is not only about “fixing” misconceptions about
individual concepts. It is about building and revising networks of concepts so students build
interrelated ideas. Recognizing that learners use their experiences and background knowledge to
actively construct meaning helps educators effectively accommodate and address student prior
knowledge and interests to enhance learning.

Investigation, experimentation, design, and analytical problem solving are central to an

effective science and technology/engineering program.

All students can develop proficiency in STE if instruction provides them with relevant and engaging
when a student presents findings from an individual or group investigation. Opportunities to
collaborate and communicate are critical to advance students’ STE learning. of their professional
communities. Ideas are tested, modified, extended, and reevaluated by those professional
communities over time. In a classroom, student learning is advanced through social interactions
among students, teachers, and external experts. When a student presents findings from an
individual or group investigation. Opportunities to collaborate and communicate are critical to
advance students’ STE learning.

An effective science and technology/engineering program conveys high academic

expectations for all students.

A high-quality education system simultaneously serves the goals of equity, excellence, and access
for all students. Teachers and guidance personnel should advise students and parents that rigorous
courses in STE at all grades will prepare them for success in college and the workplace, while
elective and advanced courses can help them enter a STEM field. The STE standards are designed
to include three interrelated components necessary for such preparation: conceptual understanding
of disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and application to the natural and
designed world. When students work toward high expectations in STE, they develop the foundations
needed for success after graduation.

An effective science and technology/engineering program integrates STE learning with

mathematics and disciplinary literacy.

Mathematics is an essential tool for scientists and engineers because it specifies in precise and
abstract (general) terms many attributes of natural phenomena and human-made systems.
Mathematics facilitates precise analysis and prediction through formulae that represent the nature of
relationships among components of a system (e.g., F = ma). Mathematics can also be used to
quantify dimensions and scale. Successful STE learning requires explicit opportunities to develop
mathematics and disciplinary literacy knowledge and skills.

An effective science and technology/engineering program uses regular assessment to inform

student learning, guide instruction, and evaluate student progress.

Teaching without attention to learners’ perspectives and prior knowledge is like flying a plane in fog
without instruments.

Ball & Forzani, 2012

Assessment reflects classroom expectations and shows outcomes of student learning based on
established knowledge and performance goals. Diagnostic information gained from different types of
assessment enables teachers to adjust their day-to-day and week-to-week practices to foster greater
student achievement. There are many types of assessment, such as paper-and-pencil testing,
performance assessments, interviews, and portfolios, as well as less formal inventories such as
regular observation of student responses to instruction. Learning progressions recognize that
learning requires revision of networks of understanding, not revision of individual concepts. It is
important to remember that the assessment of the standards should be on understanding the full
disciplinary core ideas, not just the pieces in the context of practices.

An effective science and technology/engineering program engages all students, pre-K

through grade 12.

Students benefit from studying STE throughout all their years of schooling. STE instruction may be a
dedicated time in the school schedule or may be integrated with instruction of other subjects. The
goal is for all students to have regular STE instruction every year.

An effective science and technology/engineering program requires coherent districtwide

planning and ongoing support for implementation.

Teachers in different classrooms and at different levels should agree about what is to be taught in
given grades. School districts should choose engaging, challenging, and accurate curriculum
materials that are based on research into how children learn STE, as well as research about how to
address student preconceptions.

Finally, students will be more likely to succeed in meeting the standards if they have the curricular
and instructional support that encourages their interests in STE. Further, students who are motivated
to continue their studies and to persist in more advanced and challenging courses are more likely to
become STEM-engaged citizens and, in some cases, pursue careers in STEM fields. These
affective goals should be an explicit focus of quality STE programs.

References 1. Yukseloglu, S.M.; Karaguven, M.H. Academic Motivation Levels of Technical High
School Students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 106, 282–288. 2. Hakan, K.; Münire, E. Academic
Motivation: Gender, Domain and Grade Differences. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 143, 708–715.
[CrossRef] 3. Steinmayr, R.; Weidinger, A.F.; Schwinger, M.; Spinath, B. The Importance of
Students’ Motivation for Their Academic Achievement—Replicating and Extending Previous
Findings. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1730. [CrossRef] 4. Law, K.M.Y.; Sandnes, F.E.; Huang, Y. A
comparative study of learning motivation among engineering students in South East Asia and
beyond. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 25, 144–151. 5. Catz, B.; Sabag, N.; Gero, A. Problem Based
Learning and Students’ Motivation: The Case of an Electronics Laboratory Course. Int. J. Eng. Educ.
2018, 34, 1838–1847. 6. Kolmos, A.; Mejlgaard, N.; Haase, S.; Holgaard, J.E. Motivational Factors,
Gender and Engineering Education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2013, 38, 340–358. [CrossRef] 7. Sánchez-
Barroso, G.; González-Domínguez, J.; García-Sanz-Calcedo, J.; Zamora-Polo, F. Analysis of
Learning Motivation in Industrial Engineering Teaching in University of Extremadura (Spain).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4987. [CrossRef] 8. Law, K.; Chuah, K. What Motivates Engineering
Students? A Study in Taiwan. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2009, 25, 1068–1074. 9. Lim, G.; Chua, K.S.; Wee,
K.Y.U.N. Effects of Instructional Intervention Strategies on Students at Risk in Engineering
Education. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2003, 19, 525–531. 10. Whiston, S.C.; Keller, B.K. The influences of
the family of origin on career development: A review and analysis. Couns. Psychol. 2004, 32, 493–
568. [CrossRef] 11. Reis, A.; Patrocínio, C.; Lourtie, P. Gender issues in attracting students to
science, technology, and engineering higher education. In Proceedings of the SEFI 40th Annual
Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, 23–26 September 2012. 12. Bandura, A.; Barbaranelli, C.;
Caprara, G.V.; Pastorelli, C. Self-Efficacy Beliefs as Shapers of Children's Aspirations and Career
Trajectories. Child Dev. 2001, 72, 187–206. [CrossRef] 13. Alpay, E.; Ahearn, A.L.; Graham, R.H.;
Bull, A.M.J. Student Enthusiasm for Engineering: Charting Changes in Student Aspirations and
Motivation. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2008, 33, 573–585. [CrossRef] 14. Olweny, M.R.O. Students’
Motivation for Architecture Education in Uganda. Front. Archit. Res. 2017, 6, 308–317. [CrossRef]
15. Stevens, R.; Amos, D.; Garrison, L.; Jocuns, A. Engineering as lifestyle and a meritocracy of
difficulty: Two pervasive beliefs among engineering students and their possible effects. In
Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Honolulu,
Hawaii, 24 August 2007. 16. Ibrahim, Y.E.; Salman, A.; El-Brawany, M.; Abdel-Magid, I.M.
Motivation and Persistence in Engineering Education: A Case Study at King Faisal University,
Dammam Campus, KSA. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Engineering
Education (ICEE2009), Engineering and Technology Education: Challenges of Globalization, Al-
Madina, Saudi Arabia, 6–17 May 2009. 17. Eris, O.; Chachra, D.; Chen, H.L.; Sheppard, S.; Ludlow,
L.; Rosca, C.; Bailey, T.; Toye, G. Outcomes of a Longitudinal Administration of the Persistence in
Engineering Survey. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 99, 371–395. [CrossRef] 18. Abuelma’atti, M. Engineering
education in Saudi Arabia: Problems and solutions. In Proceedings of the Fourth Saudi Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 11–12 April 2006. 19. Ivanˇcevi´c, V.; Kneževi´c,
M.; Lukovi´c, I. Academic Achievement and Choices of Computing and Control Engineering
Students in relation to Gender. In Proceedings of the 41st SEFI Conference, Leuven, Belgium, 16–
20 September 2013. 20. Peixoto, A.; González, C.S.G.; Strachan, R.; Plaza, R.; Martinez, M.A.;
Blazquez, M.; Castro, M. Diversity and inclusion in engineering education: Looking through the
gender question. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON),
2071-2075, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 17–20 April 2018. 21. OECD. Education at a Glance. In
OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2011. 22. De Carvalho Fernandes, M.R.;
Madeira, V.R.; da Gama Afonso, H.C.A.; Da Silva Duarte, K.; de Souza, A.L.L.; Peixoto, A. A Study
on the Support for Women in Engineering Courses. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Global
Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 8–11 April 2019; pp.
1237–1240. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 147 17 of 17 23. Botella, C.; Rueda, S.; López-Iñesta, E.; Marzal,
P. Gender Diversity in STEM Disciplines: A Multiple Factor Problem. Entropy 2019, 21, 30.
[CrossRef] 24. González-Pérez, S.; Mateos de Cabo, R.; Sáinz, M. Girls in STEM: Is It a Female
Role-Model Thing? Front. Psychol. 2020, 11. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Atman, C.J.; Sheppard, S.D.;
Turns, J.; Adams, R.S.; Fleming, L.N.; Stevens, R.; Streveler, R.A.; Smith, K.A.; Miller, R.L.; Leifer,
L.J.; et al. Enabling Engineering Student Success. In The Final Report for the Center for the
Advancement of Engineering Education; Morgan & Claypool: San Rafael, CA, USA, 2010. 26. Gill,
J.; Mills, J.; Franzawy, S.; Sharp, R. Oh you must be very clever! High-achieving women,
professional power and the ongoing negotiation of workplace identity. Gend. Educ. 2008, 20, 223–
236. 27. Powell, A.; Dainty, A.; Barbara, B. Gender stereotypes among women engineering and
technology students in the UK: Lessons from career choice narratives. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2012, 37,
541–556. [CrossRef] 28. Rosati, P.A.; Becker, L.M. Student perspectives on engineering. Int. J. Eng.
Educ. 1996, 12, 250–256. 29. Gill, J.; Sharp, R.; Mills, J.; Franzway, S. I Still Wanna Be an
Engineer! Women, Education, and the Engineering Profession. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2008, 33, 391–
402. [CrossRef] 30. Smith, A.E.; Dengiz, B. Women in Engineering in Turkey—A Large Scale
Quantitative and Qualitative Examination, European. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 35, 45–57. 31. Ministry of
Higher Education in Saudi Arabia. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.sa/en/HigherEducation/
governmenthighereducation/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 29 May 2020). 32. El-Sherbeeny,
A.M. Highlighting the Need for Engineering Education for Females in Saudi Arabia. In Proceedings
of the ASEE Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 15–18 June 2014. 33. Minitab. Available
online: https://www.minitab.com/en-us/ (accessed on 29 May 2020). 34. Adelman, C. The toolbox
revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School through College; US Department of
Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. 35. Astin, A.W.; Oseguera, L. Degree Attainment Rates at
American Colleges and Universities; Higher Education Research Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA,
2005. 36. Attewell, P.; Heil, S.; Reisel, L. Competing explanations of undergraduate noncompletion.
Am. Educ. Res. J. 2011, 48, 536–559. [CrossRef] 37. Palmer, R.T.; Maramba, D.C.; Dancy, T.E. A
qualitative investigation of factors promoting the retention and persistence of students of color in
STEM. J. Negro Educ. 2011, 80, 491–504. 38. Astin, A.W.; Oseguera, L. Pre-college and
institutional influences on degree attainment. In College Student Retention: Formula for Student
Success; Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group: Lanham, MD, USA, 2005; pp. 245–276. 39. Horn,
L.; Kojaku, L.K.; Carroll, C.D. High School Academic Curriculum and the Persistence Path Through
College; National Center for Education Statistics: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. 40. Koch, N.; Kraus,
A.; Cachero, C.; Meliá, S. Integration of business processes in web application models. J. Web Eng.
2004, 3, 22–49. 41. Tinto, V.; Riemer, S. Learning communities and the reconstruction of remedial
education in higher education. In Proceedings of the Conference on Replacing Remediation in
Higher Education at Stanford University, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 26 January 1998.

The effects of an afterschool STEM program on students’ motivation

and engagement

Brett D. Jones et al (2017) Effects of an afterschool STEM program on students' motivation and
engagement. The researchers collected two convenience samples. The first sample which was used for
the quantative analyses addressing RQ1, included both studio STEM participants and non-participants
from two rural, low-income (Title 1) K-7 schools in Southwest Virginia and the second sample was used
for RQ2 and included students who participated in studio STEM at one of the K-7 schools. Based on the
results of the researchers, they found that non-participants’ perceptions about science attainment value t
(101) = 2.10, p = .039), science interest value (t (101) = 2.29, p = .024), and science utility value (t (101) =
3.33, p = .001) significantly decrease overtime. According to the results of the data the participants'
motivation and involvement in program-based science and engineering activities, as well as their
motivational ideas about science and aspirations to seek a college education, were all positively impacted
by Studio STEM.

How to Motivate US Students to Pursue STEM (Science, Technology,

Engineering and Mathematics) Careers

Hossain, Md. Mokter; G. Robinson, Michael

2012

Google Scholar

STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematic) includes some of the most
versatile and important careers in the contemporary world. Most new developments that
are making the world a better place to live in are from the contributions of STEM fields.
As the world becomes more technologically developed, the economy, power and
leadership of the US are becoming more heavily based on effective practice and the
number of skilled workers in these fields.It is assumed that many high-STEM-ability US
students fail to realize their full STEM potential at the high-school level, or many of them leave
their career choices in STEM fields entirely at the college level. There exist a lot of magnet
STEM programs nationwide that are largely responsible for developing much of the talent
emerging from the public school system. These programs, however, are not necessarily
available to underprivileged students, and some are being cut due to current budget restraints.
According to Wasserman (2008), retaining these students in STEM and enhancing their high-
school STEM experiences are simpler than recruiting additional students. These students could
be considered as the low-hanging fruit in the NSB’s (National Science Board) efforts to produce
the next generation of innovators. Sometimes, their talent and potential are overlooked, under-
developed and underutilized. Over the past two decades, the US STEM workforce has grown at
more than four times the rate of total employment. At the same time, the proportion of US
citizens qualified to fill STEM jobs is stagnating (University of California, 2010). According to a
2004 high powered US Education Commission, the STEM workforce in the US largely depends
on foreign-born mathematicians, scientists and engineers (Sanders, 2004). In this rapidly
growing competitive market, industry prefers graduates who have the potential to meet their
research and development needs, and compete effectively with their counterparts worldwide. In
a 2008 report, a public high school authority in the US discovered an extremely low level of
interest for participating in STEM related career academics in high school among middle school
students; however, the students showed higher interests in arts, literatures, businesses and
entertainment related careers, especially the girls (Rogers, 2009). Thus, it sometimes becomes
a challenge for many high schools in the US to get a sufficient number of students to choose to
enroll in STEM related academics. If low enrollment in STEM fields and low interest in STEM
academics continue, all high school academics that link to STEM majors will be at great risk
(Rogers, 2009). The Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce in Tennessee and numerous
national sources pointed out that the US needed more workers in STEM fields. Experts warn
that the US apathetic performance in encouraging students to enter STEM careers can
complicate the troubles of the nation’s already ailing economical situation (Ramirez, 2008).

A great number of US students believe that a college degree is an excellent advantage in

finding a rewarding job. But many more do not consider postsecondary education as the optimal
or even a possible choice. About one-half of US students who leave high school without the
knowledge or skills needed to find and maintain a job, and one-third of them are not prepared
for even entry-level work (Levinson & Palmer, 2005). Many American students and their parents
believe that most of the STEM studies require significant investment and hard work in
education. Students who do commit themselves from the very beginning of middle or high
school and have the opportunities to take high school or vocational courses in science and
mathematics do succeed in the STEM path in their future studies.

To address the barriers, misconceptions and problems of STEM education, we need to target
STEM education components for students at all levels from elementary to graduate levels. We
particularly need to target the pre-service teachers who will become the future STEM
undergraduate, graduate or faculty school teachers. To meet the needs of a scientifically and
technologically literate workforce, meaningful preparation of STEM teachers needs to be
considered as an undoubted necessity. To increase young students’ interests and enthusiasm
in STEM careers, there are some actions that can be taken. They include the following:
Organizing fundraising events with the community or other projects that increase budgeting and
math skills; teaching youth at science summer camps or after-school programs; getting students
to join math and science clubs; exploring technology hobbies among school children; helping
them to participate in science fairs; basic computing and internet browsing; including them in
Internet forums and social networking; giving them books and magazines on science and
mathematics; motivating them to pursue science and engineering careers; and helping them to
learn about computer parts; etc. (Setda.org, 2008). The US Federal Government has pursued
some of these initiatives, and if they are successfully implemented by 2020, the US will once
again have the prospect for the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. The tax
credit and grant programs are some of the programs initiated to make US college education
more affordable. They can greatly enhance the US ability to compete for the high-wage and
high-tech jobs of the future and foster the next generation of the STEM workforce (Obama,
2009). The US 2010 budget provided $115 millions for the DOE (Department of Energy) to
launch a program jointly with the NSE (National Stock Exchange) to inspire tens of thousands of
American students to pursue STEM careers, particularly in clean energy (Johnson, Chubin, &
Malcom, 2010). Even as the US focuses on low-performing students, it should devote
considerable attention and resources to all of our most high-achieving students from across all
economic and ethnic groups. In the words of President Obama (2009), “We must educate our
children to compete in an age where knowledge is capital, and the marketplace is global”.

Despite of coherent actions taken by educators, government and various organizations, the US
cannot be certain of producing and certifying the quantity and quality of students, teachers and
professionals in STEM fields needed to meet the nation’s current demands. The overall situation
indicates that it is unlikely that the US will maintain its local and global leadership in science,
math and technology professions unless federal planners take remedial action to produce
nationally or import enough experts in these fields. This is not a satisfactory outlook for
American educators and legislators who are attempting to recover from the current economic
hardship and ensure sustainability as a high technology nation. A vital question is whether the
US education system and job markets are failing to motivate and encourage American students
to pursue STEM education and careers in these fields. The solution to the STEM education
problem should be handled in an interdisciplinary manner, which must be grounded in the
STEM discipline departments as well as the Colleges of Education and Human Development.
STEM education should be considered as a targeted education component for graduate
students who will later after work experience become the future STEM undergraduate and
graduate faculty. Meaningful preparation of K-12 and higher education STEM faculty should be
considered as an undoubted necessity to meet the needs of a scientifically and technologically
literate workforce in a modern and technology-driven nation.

References

Borjas, G. J. (2004). Do foreign students crowd out native students from graduate? NBER
Working Paper No. w10349. Retrieved

March 12, 2010, from http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/nber_w10349.pdf?

abstractid=515243

Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure pre-
service teachers’ technology

skills, technology beliefs and technology barriers. Computers in the Schools, 25(1-2), 112-125.

Denson, C. D., & Hill, R. B. (2010). Impact of an engineering mentorship program on African-
American male high school

students’ perceptions and self-efficacy. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 47(1), 99-127.

Education News. (2010, April, 15). US teachers not well prepared to teach mathematics, study
finds. Retrieved October 17, 2010,

from http://www.educationnews.org/ed_reports/edu_assoc_articles/91006.html

eSchool News. (2008a, June 24). Fewer students seek tech-related degrees. Retrieved
February 16, 2010, from http://www.
eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/?i=54247;_hbguid=900b8324-daf2-46d3-b631-ca35461b9736

eSchool News. (2008b, July 18). US behind in doubling science grads. Retrieved February 16,
2010, from http://www.

eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/?i=54607

Ingersoll, R., & Perda, D. D. (2010). Is the supply of mathematics and science teachers
sufficient? American Educational

Research Journal, 47(3), 563-594. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from

http://www.aer.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/05/

13/0002831210370711.full.pdf+html

Johnson, R. Y., Chubin, D. E., & Malcom, S. M. (2010). Education and human resources in the
FY 2010 budget: Investing in the

future of STEM education. Retrieved December 18, 2011, from

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2010/ch04.pdf

Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education:

Background, federal policy and

legislative action. CRS report for Congress. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33434.pdf

Kurz, T. & Middleton, J. (2006). Using a functional approach to change pre-service teachers’
understanding of mathematics

software. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 51-71.

Levinson, E. M., & Palmer, E. J. (2005). Preparing students with disabilities for school-to-work
transitions and post-school life.

Retrieved April 10, 2010 from http://www.nasponline.org/resources/principals/Transition

%20Planning%20WEB.pdf
National Center on Education and the Economy. (2006). Tough choices or tough times: Report
of the new commission of the skills

of American workforce. Washington, D. C.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The condition of education. Retrieved
November 12, 2010, from

http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section5/indicator39.asp

National Science Board. (2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of the
US science, technology,

engineering and mathematics education system. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/

ANationalActionPlanforAddressi/174272

National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators: 2008. Arlington, V. A.:
National Science Foundation.

NSTA (National Science Teachers Association). (2008). NSTA new science teacher academy.
Retrieved December 12, 2008, from

http://www.nsta.org/academy/

Obama, B. (2009). What science can do? ISSUES in Science and Technology, 25th
Anniversary Issue, 25(4), 23-30.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2009). Education at a

glance 2009: OECD indicators. Washington, D. C.: OECD. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009 Patrick, S., & Thomas, W. R. (2009). Breaking away from
tradition: E-education expands opportunities for raising achievement. Technology Counts,
28(26). Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.edweek.org/media/tc_2009_download.pdf
PCAST (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology). (2010). Prepare and
inspire: K-12 education in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) for America’s
future. Retrieved November 13, 2010, from http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf Ramirez, E. (2008).
How to solve our problem with math. US News and World Report, December 4, 2008. Retrieved
March 15, 2009, from http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2008/12/04/how-
to-solve-our-problem-with-math.html Robinson, M., & Ochs, G. (2008). Determining why
students take more science than required in high school. Bulleting of Science Technology and
Society, 28(4). Retrieved from http://www.bst.sagepub.com/content/28/4/338 Rogers, S. (2009,
September). Rapid prototyping: A strategy to promote interest in STEM careers. Paper
Presented on US-Turkey Workshop on Rapid Technologies. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from
http://iweb.tntech.edu/rrpl/rapidtech2009/rogers.pdf Sanders, T. (2004). No time to waste: The
vital role of college and university leaders in improving science and mathematics education.
Retrieved February 16, 2010, from http://www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=5480
Setda.org. (2008). Science, technology, engineering & math. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from
http://www.setda.org/c/ document_library/get_file?folderId=270&name=DLFE-257.pdf Taylor, J.,
Harris, M. B., & Taylor, S. (2004). Parents have their say… about their college-age children’s
career decision. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from
http://www.uncw.edu/Stuaff/career/documents/parentssay%5B1%5D.pdf Terrel, N. (2007).
STEM occupations. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 26-33. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2007/spring/art04.pdf University of California. (2010). Degrees of
success: Bachelor’s degree completion rates among initial STEM majors. Retrieved February
16, 2010, from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/HERI_ResearchBrief_OL_2010_STEM.pdf
Wasserman, L. (2008). Compiled perspectives on STEM education. Retrieved February 16,
2010, from http://www.nsf.gov/
nsb/meetings/2009/0824/Louis_Wasserman_Compiled_Perspectives_on_STEM_Education.pdf
Watts-Taffe, S., Gwinn, C. B., Johnson, J. R., & Horn, M. L. (2003). Preparing pre-service
teachers to integrate technology with the elementary literacy program. The Reading Teacher,
57, 130-138. Woullard, R., & Coats, L. T. (2004). The community college role in preparing future
teachers: The impact of a mentoring program for preservice teachers. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 28(7), 609-624.