View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

What Young Adolescents Think about Engineering: Immediate and Longer Lasting Impressions of a Video Intervention

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: What Young Adolescents Think about Engineering: Immediate and Longer Lasting Impressions of a Video Intervention
Language: English
Authors: Jennings, Sybillyn, McIntyre, Julie Guay, Butler, Sarah E.
Source: Journal of Career Development. Feb 2015 42(1):3-18.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Junior High Schools
Grade 5
Intermediate Grades
Grade 8
Descriptors: Early Adolescents, Engineering, Engineering Education, Intervention, Video Technology, Gender Differences, Cohort Analysis, Science Interests, Student Interests, Student Attitudes, Vocational Interests, Qualitative Research, Statistical Analysis, Stereotypes, Control Groups, Experimental Groups, Questionnaires, Elementary School Students, Attitude Change, Instructional Films, Program Effectiveness, Middle School Students, Grade 5, Grade 8
DOI: 10.1177/0894845314555124
ISSN: 0894-8453
Abstract: To explore young adolescents' interest in engineering as a future career, we examined the influence of gender and grade level on participants' (N = 197, aged 10-13) views of engineering. One group (107 students) viewed a brief engineering video and wrote why they felt the same or different about engineering following the video. Qualitative analyses revealed that some reported viewing engineering differently and more positively, although most did not want to be an engineer. Girls, more than boys, noted that engineers helped people. Six months after the video intervention, participants completed quantitative measures about engineering. Quantitative analyses comparing responses of participants who had seen the video, with those who had not, revealed that the video dispelled some stereotyped beliefs, but not others, with grade-level and gender effects. The findings highlight the importance of listening to adolescents' views about engineering as a field and as a future career.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 59
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1049063
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEdSnCMahgVtKZTshLqp1xTAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDE9aHgw654LzsGl4wAIBEICBmoW6h1IMswPc9BgEMMrbjs8c9HYS6cJYTLy6RXFHOEJuAMlux9Me-F2hNabcbBH24SKEpp9UJoBjP9SjjoiRsCqJ1zxN3i_mJkXLsrccbE9BCrdOXd0tMEkElaRMvKtRmdSX67iYrcuSwtg0a73cTMVV9n19wvg74GbRb39ZxTzR9o_AYX83__1t0ujuZyO0w0HNGH_VFMJPdEI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0100246658;[2yf6]01feb.15;2015Jan06.08:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0100246658-1">What Young Adolescents Think About Engineering: Immediate and Longer Lasting Impressions of a Video Intervention </title> <p>JCDspjcdJournal of Career Development0894-84531556-0856SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA10.1177/089484531455512410.1177_0894845314555124ArticlesWhat Young Adolescents Think About EngineeringImmediate and Longer Lasting Impressions of a Video InterventionJenningsSybillyn1McIntyreJulie Guay1ButlerSarah E.1Author BiographiesSybillyn Jennings, professor and chair of psychology at The Sage Colleges, earned her BA at Bennington College, MA at the San Jose State University, PhD at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and conducted postdoctoral research in cognitive development at the University of Denver as an NIMH fellow. Her research interests are in the life span development of human consciousness. As a specialist in applied cognition and learning, Dr. Jennings has consulted on national STEM grants, including clinical physics and materials handling engineering along with her work at the Center for Initiatives in Pre-College Education at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Her favorite curricular projects include Founder’s Seminar, Developmental Trajectories in Harry Potter, and labs in the Developmental Science course. She also enjoys writing stories for her grandnieces and grandnephews.Julie Guay McIntyre, a developmental psychologist, is an associate professor of psychology at The Sage Colleges. She completed her graduate degrees (MS and PhD) at Syracuse University and her undergraduate BA (in psychology) at the State University of New York (SUNY) College at Plattsburgh. Before coming to Sage, she taught for a year at SUNY Adirondack. Dr. McIntyre teaches introductory psychology, developmental science, health psychology, positive psychology, and psychology of disability. Her research interests include the impact of perceived parenting practices on adolescents’ coping strategies, getting young girls interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as well as the scholarship of teaching. Dr. McIntyre is a supplement author for a number of textbooks. She enjoys spending time with her husband, two sons, and newborn daughter.Sarah E. Butler, assistant professor of psychology at The Sage Colleges, earned her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Baker University and her master’s and doctoral degrees in experimental social psychology from DePaul University. She primarily teaches courses in research methods and statistics, social psychology, and human sexuality. Her research interests focus on social perception and the ways that psychological principles can be utilized to improve the teaching of psychology and sexuality courses. In the time between her professional responsibilities, Dr. Butler enjoys both playing in local Ultimate Frisbee leagues and traveling to Ultimate tournaments in interesting areas around United States and Canada.1Department of Psychology, Russell Sage College, The Sage Colleges, Troy, NY, USASybillyn Jennings, Russell Sage College, The Sage Colleges, 65 First Street, Troy, NY 12180, USA. Email: jennis@sage.edu22015421318© Curators of the University of Missouri 20142014The Curators of the University of MissouriTo explore young adolescents’ interest in engineering as a future career, we examined the influence of gender and grade level on participants’ (N = 197, aged 10–13) views of engineering. One group (107 students) viewed a brief engineering video and wrote why they felt the same or different about engineering following the video. Qualitative analyses revealed that some reported viewing engineering differently and more positively, although most did not want to be an engineer. Girls, more than boys, noted that engineers helped people. Six months after the video intervention, participants completed quantitative measures about engineering. Quantitative analyses comparing responses of participants who had seen the video, with those who had not, revealed that the video dispelled some stereotyped beliefs, but not others, with grade-level and gender effects. The findings highlight the importance of listening to adolescents’ views about engineering as a field and as a future career.career interests/structure of interestresearch content areascareer-related self-efficacylifespan/development theoriescareer theorieschildren/youthsample populationsIn recent years, programs have been initiated to promote girls’ and minorities’ interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) with the long-term goal of increasing participation in STEM careers (e.g., ACT Policy Report, 2006; The Society of Women Engineers, 2013). The kinds of intervention programs vary from daylong panel presentations by professionals in STEM careers to hands-on, out-of-school activities that include college students working with younger adolescents and school children, along with professional development for STEM teachers. National groups have pursued the goal of getting more students into the STEM pipeline; specifically, by taking classes in middle school, high school, and college that will equip them for a career in the STEM field (e.g., ACT Policy Report, 2006). Limitations of “… the concept of a ‘pipeline’ to STEM competency and accomplishment” (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST], 2012, p. 10) have been recognized as failing to attend to the diverse backgrounds and developing ideas of the target population.From a developmental standpoint, interventions need to go beyond project-based activities, and they must occur early, preferably before eighth grade, when career aspirations become stable (Rojewski & Yang, 1997). Interventions need to be based on understanding developmental changes in perceptions of self and careers in late childhood and early adolescence. One step has been to identify variables that contribute to students’ participation in STEM activities such as interest and self-concept (e.g., Beier & Rittmayer, 2009). Theoretical approaches in motivation (Eccles, 2005), development in relation to career paths (Savickas, 2002), perception of supports and barriers (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2002), and the process of vocational choice (Gottfredson, 2005) agree on the importance of personal interest, value, and self-appraisal shaped by the social context in understanding people’s expectations and behavioral outcomes. This line of research, published in different disciplines, has been slow to influence initiatives and projects aimed at increasing the pool of students who will enter, and remain in, the pipeline of course work, leading to careers in STEM. This is particularly true of efforts to extend the reach of STEM careers to groups, whose backgrounds are not typical of students who choose STEM careers (PCAST, 2012).As intervention projects expand, researchers are also becoming more aware of the need to find out how participants perceive these experiences including what they think about STEM (e.g., Girls Incorporated, 2013; Varma & Hahn, 2008). The research reported here focused on what girls and boys think about engineering. Specifically, how do gender and grade-level influence what appeals, or does not appeal, to young people about the field of engineering? Do fifth and eighth graders see connections between their interests and what engineers do? This exploratory study attempted to answer these questions in an effort to identify connections between girls’ and boys’ self-appraisals, their ideas about the field of engineering, and when, developmentally, students may be open to considering engineering as a future career.From Math and Science Ability to Interest in STEMResearch exploring females’ entrance into and persistence in STEM fields began with studies of gender disparity in mathematics achievement and attitudes toward math. However, a recent analysis of national data on eighth-grade students (Riegle-Crumb, Moore, & Ramos-Wada, 2011) revealed the complexity of identifying variables that influence math and science career aspirations of students from different ethnic groups. Enjoyment of science had a greater effect on career aspirations than other variables, suggesting that getting students excited about learning math and science may have been downplayed in previous work. Even if students are interested and perform well in math and science, most have few encounters with the field of engineering (American Society for Quality, 2005–2008). Maltese and Tai’s (2011) research revealed that few young adolescents knew people who worked in STEM fields and were aware of STEM careers. Another observable gap is that engineers are not featured in films and television programs, nor is the role of technology in creating video game and social media environments visible to the public—omissions that underlie the educational philosophy of a recent television program Design Squad Nation (WGBH Boston Education Foundation, 2012). Although research and interventions have targeted teachers and parents (Harackiewicz, Rozek, Hulleman, & Hyde, 2012) to interest high school students in studying STEM, less research has examined students’ interests in STEM at earlier ages. In part this reflects the focus of earlier research on a variety of measures of mathematical and scientific ability rather than on interest. Knowing why girls appear to be less interested in STEM than boys and knowing when their thinking is most open to change are key to encouraging interest in STEM careers (Girl Scouts of the United States of America, 2013).Engaging Interest in STEM: Early Exposure MattersLittle research has been conducted directly on STEM knowledge, interests, beliefs, and career aspirations of young children. Even less research has examined these variables with an explicit focus on engineering. Analyzing data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Tai, Liu, Maltese, and Fan (2006) pointed out that “we should not overlook the likelihood that life experiences before 8th grade and in elementary school have an important impact on future career plans” (p. 1144). They reported that almost half of eighth graders who expected to have a career in science or engineering ended up majoring in engineering. Rather than focus so much on ability and achievement, they advocated efforts to interest young students in STEM (Schoon, 2001; Tai, Liu, Maltese, and Fan, 2006). As posited by social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 2002), interest drives the choices people make and the actions they take in pursuing a career.In a longitudinal study of children in kindergarten through third grade, Jacobs, Davis-Kean, Bleeker, Eccles, and Malanchuck (2005) illustrated the importance of the elementary school years for later math and science course choices. The younger the children, the more interested they were in math. Furthermore, the less traditional their parents’ gender role beliefs, the more interested girls were in math. Maltese and Tai (2011) found that eighth graders who indicated they were interested in a science career and those who believed science would be useful in their future were more likely to earn STEM degrees. Studies indicate a positive relation between early exposure and STEM interest (e.g., Simpkins, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2006).The Influence of Parents and Teachers’ Values and BeliefsGottfredson’s (2005) theory of circumscription and compromise describes how children and adolescents become aware of vocational choices and decide which jobs are appropriate for them. In this process “the child’s social space filters expressed aspirations” (Gottfredson, 2005, p. 82) and may lead to the psychological closing down of occupations that might otherwise fit their interests. Once dismissed, children are not likely to pay attention to occupations they have rejected. Cultural beliefs about math and science aptitudes, particularly beliefs held by parents and teachers, influence the circumscription and compromise process early on (Gottfredson, 2005). Parental stereotypes about the different cognitive abilities of males and females as they match particular careers have long-lasting effects on children’s consideration of careers. Longitudinal studies have shown that parents’ beliefs about children’s talents at 6 years of age predict children’s beliefs about their own abilities at age 17 (Fredricks & Eccles, 2002). For example, both parents and teachers persist in the belief that males have more innate talent for math than females (Tiedemann, 2000). Even young children seem to internalize these beliefs (Cvencek, Meltzoff, & Greenwald, 2011), which influence their interest in taking math courses and their ideas about being good at math (Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990). Bleeker and Jacobs (2004) report that children’s self-views were more affected by their mothers’ perceptions than by their own achievements. Parental stereotypes have long-lasting effects. Daughters of mothers who thought males were better at math when their children were in sixth grade were less likely to choose careers in physical science (Bleeker & Jacobs, 2004). Learning about discrimination may strengthen girls’ resolve to succeed, but it can lead girls to reject an occupation where they may encounter gender discrimination. Perceived disparities in career discrimination may foreshadow future inequities, and girls are unlikely to reconsider an occupation they have decided is not for them (Gottfredson & Lapan, 1997).Girls’ early decisions about STEM careersA number of studies suggest that girls just do not think about STEM fields, particularly engineering, as potential careers. In Schoon’s (2001) study of the match between career aspirations at age 16 and attainment at age 33 in the fields of science, health professions, and engineering, 21% of males, but only 0.20% of females aspired to engineering. Different theoretical orientations assert that girls do not think of engineering as a possible career. Researchers point to gender stereotypes (Liben & Bigler, 2002); parents and teachers’ views, expectations, and values (Watt & Eccles, 2008); lack of role models (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000); limited experiences (Margolis & Fisher, 2002); and socioeconomic status (Useem, 1992) as multiple contributing factors to this conclusion. If engineering is not even on the minds of girls, it is no surprise that so few of them pursue an engineering major or aspire to a career in this field. Males and females seem to be equally open to the same kinds of professions in childhood (Liben & Bigler, 2002), but by adolescence gender beliefs have segregated occupations.Agency and communion: HelpingIn early childhood, helping is a concept that organizes actions and is highly valued by family members, teachers, and friends. Boys and girls are expected to help, but as helping becomes increasingly differentiated as a female, not male, characteristic across middle childhood and adolescence, expectations change. Weisgram and Bigler (2006) reported differences in middle school boys and girls’ ratings of altruism, “with girls valuing helping significantly more than boys” (p. 334). They did not find sex differences on ratings of power, family, and money. According to Eccles (2007; Watt & Eccles, 2008), girls hold humanistic values and may not see STEM fields as helping people (Miller, 2003). Female students stated explicitly that they had chosen science to work with people to improve their health; they focused on people, rather than things (Ceci & Williams, 2011; Lippa, 1998).The value of helping is not only evident in girls’ descriptions of people who work with computers as antisocial males (American Association of University Women, 2000) but also in responses of first-year, noncomputer majors who reported not thinking about technology and computing as helping people (Dimond & Guzdial, 2008). In discussing reasons why women opt out of STEM careers, Diekman, Brown, Johnston, and Clark (2010) point to the “communion gap” (p. 1052) between non-STEM careers perceived as affording helping and STEM careers that do not. Likewise, the meta-analysis of Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb, and Corrigall (2000) showed that helping and interpersonal relationships were valued by females more than males. The contrast between working with things and working with people remains strongly tied to males and females’ perceptions of occupations (Lippa, 1998). STEM careers are perceived as isolating and focused on things, not people. Girls may eliminate engineering as an occupation because it fails the person–environment fit criterion (Lewin, 1939).Finding Out What Children and Adolescents Think About EngineeringThe objective of this research was to explore the effects of a brief video intervention on fifth- and eighth-grade boys and girls’ beliefs and perceptions related to engineering as a future career possibility. The design used a 10-min video about engineers and engineering (National Engineers Week, 2013) to elicit students’ ideas about engineering, allowing comparison between those who viewed the video and their gender and grade-level counterparts who did not. The study included fifth-grade as well as eighth-grade students because previous research on female development found that students’ academic motivation and school grades drop as they move from elementary to middle or junior high school (Eccles, 2004). The clinical literature suggests that around puberty girls’ lose interest in exploring science, focusing on how they appear to others (e.g., Pipher, 1994), and their self-confidence and perceived competence (e.g., Harter, 1982) decline dramatically. Furthermore, research in STEM reported that programs targeting high school students, particularly girls, were too late (Cho, Goodman, Oppenheimer, Codling, & Robinson, 2009; Valian, 1998) and suggested the need for early exposure. Observations of elementary school girls who found they were interested in engineering in LEGO-Robotics camp (McIntyre & Jennings, 2009) lent support to studying students in late childhood. This mixed-method study allowed for both qualitative and quantitative representations of participants’ perceptions. The open-ended items gave girls and boys opportunities to say what they were thinking about the video’s portrayal of engineering in their own words (e.g., “student voice,” Jenkins & Nelson, 2005, p. 3), whereas the closed-ended items allowed for targeted assessments of specific attitudes and stereotypes about engineering.Hypothesis 1: Participants’ impressions of engineering after they watch a video featuring engineers at work, assessed by their qualitative written responses to questions presented immediately after the video, will be influenced by gender and grade level. Specifically, (a) girls, more than boys, will report feeling differently about engineering after seeing the video (we did not hypothesize an influence of grade level); (b) girls, more than boys, will comment positively on engineers as “helpers” (we did not hypothesize a grade-level effect); (c) girls in fifth grade will be more open to considering engineering as a possible future career than eighth-grade girls (we did not hypothesize a grade-level effect for boys).Hypothesis 2: Participants who had watched the video, compared to controls who had not seen the video, will (a) view engineering more broadly and (b) hold fewer stereotypes about traditional social norms and sex roles, assessed by a series of quantitative items using rating scales. These effects will be influenced by gender and grade level.MethodBackground Context of the ParticipantsParticipants were 197 students in late childhood (fifth grade; 50 girls and 71 boys) and early adolescence (eighth grade; 44 girls and 32 boys) attending public, suburban elementary and middle schools in the northeast region of the United States. Students from a total of eight classrooms participated (i.e., all six fifth-grade classrooms in the elementary school and two eighth-grade science classrooms in the middle school). The mean age for the fifth-grade girls was 10 years, 5 months (SD = 4.43) and for fifth-grade boys, 10 years, 6 months (SD = 5.22). The mean age for eighth-grade girls was 13 years, 5 months (SD = 4.87) and for eighth-grade boys, 13 years, 5 months (SD = 5.06). Ethnically, 73% identified themselves as Caucasian, 16% Hispanic/Latino, 8% African American, 6.6% Native American, 1% Asian American, and 5% other. This was a relatively heterogeneous sample for the school district, which serves a population of 3,200 students; 90% are White, 3.7% students of color, and 1.5% Hispanic Latino. The median income is US$54,157, with 9.7% of the students eligible for free or reduced cost lunch.Overall 95% of students’ fathers were employed, and half the students’ mothers worked outside the home. The school is located near a major engineering industrial center; however, in this sample, only three fathers and no mothers worked in the field of engineering. To explore students’ awareness of engineering as a career that might interest them, at the outset of the study they were asked an open-ended question about what career they would most like to have as an adult and what career they would not want to have. In this sample of 197 students, 5.58% mentioned engineering (five eighth-grade boys and two fifth-grade boys as a job desired and four eighth-grade girls as a job they would not want).ProcedureFall procedureStudents participated in same-sex groups in their school classrooms. We segregated students by gender to reduce the possibility of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). First, students responded to a questionnaire packet that took approximately 15 min to complete. The researchers and their college student assistants administered the questionnaires. All students in attendance on that day were offered the opportunity to participate (one fifth-grade boy and one fifth-grade girl declined); however, only the responses of students who returned parental consent forms were included in the analyses. Following the completion of the questionnaire, students in the control (non-video exposure) condition were thanked and returned to their classrooms, while students in the video intervention condition watched a10-min video. Two female college-student assistants introduced the video to the girls, and two male college-student assistants introduced the video to the boys. Immediately after the video, participants responded in writing to three prompts. After handing in their written responses, participants in the video-exposure group engaged in an informal discussion (5–7 min) facilitated by the research assistants who presented the video. This gave students the chance to process the video, to ask questions, and to discuss engineering. They then were thanked and returned to their classrooms.We did not have the option of random assignment to the experimental conditions of the study due to each school’s schedule. In the middle school, there were five eighth-grade science classes; three met in the morning and two in the afternoon, and there was no reason to suspect differences between morning and afternoon sessions. (The special education science class was not included in the data collection.) In the elementary school, all six fifth-grade classes participated in the study. In both schools, morning sessions were assigned to the video-exposure group and afternoon sessions to the controls. Teachers, who were not aware of whether the session was exposure or control, divided their students, sending girls and boys to different rooms.Spring procedureSix months later, we returned to the schools. Again, all students in the classrooms were invited to participate; however, only those students who had completed the questions in the fall and who had returned parental consent forms were included in the analyses. As in the fall, for each testing session, girls were assigned to one classroom and boys to another. Participants completed the same questionnaire packet, but the video-exposure groups did not view the video again and did not answer questions pertaining to the video.MeasuresWe designed both qualitative and quantitative measures to elicit participants’ views of engineers and engineering. The qualitative measures asked participants to provide their immediate impressions of engineering following the video. The quantitative measures allowed us to assess the longer term effect of these impressions by comparing the responses, 6 months later, of participants who had seen the video with those who had not.Video intervention groupImmediately following the completion of the questionnaire packet in the fall, 107 participants (51 girls: 25 fifth graders and 26 eighth graders; and 56 boys: 35 fifth graders and 21 eighth graders) in the exposure condition watched a video that featured three adolescents learning from two engineers how to purify water to make it safe to drink for children in Mexico (<ulink href="http://www.discoverengineering.org">http://www.discoverengineering.org</ulink>). Then, right after seeing the video, participants responded in writing to three prompts. They checked whether they had seen this video or others like it before. In response to the question, “How do you feel about engineering now that you have watched the video,” they checked whether they felt “the same” or whether they felt “differently” and then responded to the open-ended instruction to “explain what they meant.” These written responses formed the data for participants’ immediate impressions of engineering.Coding responses to the videoThe researchers developed categories and accompanying decision rules and coded participants’ responses to the video following preliminary and independent reviews. Organizing themes included statements about information gained about the field of engineering, indication of a personal interest in relating, or not relating, to engineering as a future career, and identification of engineering as a helping career. One participant, for example, expressed gaining information about engineering, “I feel different because I always thought that they worked by themselves but now I found out they worked in teams.” We looked for statements of personal connection to and interest in engineering. Personal connection to engineering was defined by the participant’s expression of interest in becoming an engineer, for example, “Now I am thinking more about having a career in the engineering field,” and “I feel different because I didn’t know they helped so much and it made me want to be an engineer more.” We also looked for statements showing that the student did not feel a personal connection to engineering; for example, “I feel the same because I don’t really want to be an engineer. I don’t think building things is what I want to do” and “I feel that engineers have important and wonderful jobs but I still want to be an artist because drawing is my everything and I love to draw.” Finally, we coded statements that identified engineering as a helping career; this included helping people, making the environment safe, and doing good things for people and the world; for example, “I feel different because I really never knew that others were suffering damage like that. I’m really excited we have engineers to help.” Themes overlapped in some participants’ responses, for example, “I never knew that engineering could help people like they do. I thought they only worked on cars.” Kappas (κ), as reported in the results section, primarily ranged between 0.82 and 0.94, with one set of responses having a κ value of .70. Overall, these values are within the highly acceptable range, with the lowest still within the range of acceptability.QuestionnairesThe questionnaire packet included demographic information, such as birth date, sex, ethnic background, and open-ended questions asking about mothers and fathers’ current employment and job title. It also included questions designed by the researchers about students’ career interests when they became adults and statements about engineering the participants were asked to rate. Individual statements described what engineers are like (e.g., engineers are men/engineers are women), the kinds of work engineers do (e.g., engineers design things that help the environment /engineers design things that help people), and included descriptions of what engineers are good at (e.g., engineers are good at learning math) and engineers’ family responsibilities (e.g., engineers can take time off work to be with their kids.) The statements were designed to assess a stereotyped view based on social norms and a nonstereotyped view. The items were presented in random order, and participants responded to each item individually. Participants used a 5-point Likert-type scale (from don’t agree at all to agree a lot) with the option of checking don’t know. The don’t know response option was designed to differentiate between students who had a neutral or ambivalent response to an item from students who did not know how they felt about the item. We suspected that there would be students who did not have enough information about engineers and engineering to rate how they thought about particular items. Without the don’t know option, students who were not clear on their perspectives would most likely have chosen a 3 on the scale, making it impossible to determine whether a moderate response represented a lack of knowledge or a combination of agreement and disagreement.ResultsWe first present the analyses conducted to examine the influence of watching the video on participants’ immediate impressions of engineering. These analyses are confined to the responses of the video-exposure group immediately after they watched the video in the fall. Then we present the analyses we conducted to examine the longer term influence of the video. These analyses compared ratings of statements about engineers and engineering by those who had seen the video in the fall and those who had not.Analyses of the Immediate Responses of the Video-Intervention GroupAmong the 107 participants in the video-exposure condition, seven eighth graders and two fifth graders checked that they had seen the video or one like it before. Participants also checked whether they felt the same or differently after seeing the video. Overall, 60 (56.1%) of the 107 participants checked that they felt differently. All participants in the video group responded to the prompt to explain what they meant by saying they felt the same or differently. Content analyses were performed to examine which elements of the video stood out to participants along with the impressions they had about engineering after watching the video. Two of the researchers independently coded each element. The Cohen’s κ coefficient was calculated for each set of codings, and disagreements in the codings were discussed and resolved.Hypothesis 1a: Girls, more than boys, will report feeling differently about engineering after seeing the video. We did not hypothesize an influence of grade level. A χ2 test for independence was performed for gender, comparing the number of participants who checked that they felt the same or differently while controlling for grade. The analysis showed that there was a relationship between the responses and gender for fifth graders, χ2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>, 107) = 5.11, p = .02, such that 68% of the girls (17 of the 25) indicated that they felt differently, whereas 60% of the boys (21 of the 35) indicated that they felt the same.1 There was no relationship between the variables for the eighth graders, χ2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>, 107) = 1.17, p = .28.We examined the number of participants who wrote about information gained while watching the video (Cohen’s κ = .85). Responses were coded for the presence or absence of language, indicating change in their understanding of engineering. This coding was done across the “same” and “different” responses, as participants could have felt the same overall about engineering, but still felt they learned something. Among the 38 participants who mentioned learning something new about engineering, two indicated they felt the same. These participants reported that learning something new did not change their view of engineering.As with the same/different responses, a χ2 test for independence was performed for gender while controlling for grade. The analysis revealed a relationship between the responses and gender for the fifth graders, χ2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>, 107) = 6.04, p = .01. Of the girls, 46% mentioned that they learned something, but only 17% of the boys mentioned some sort of change in their understanding. Consistent with the same/different response pattern, there was no relationship between the variables for eighth graders, χ2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>, 107) = .46, p = .50.Hypothesis 1b: Girls, more than boys, exposed to the video will comment positively on engineers as “helpers.” We did not hypothesize an influence of grade level. To assess whether the message of helping portrayed in the engineering video appealed more to girls than to boys, we coded for statements that indicated an awareness of engineers as “helpers” or a desire to help others through engineering (Cohen’s κ = .94). We then conducted a χ2 analysis for independent groups comparing the frequency of statements made by boys and girls in which they commented on engineers helping and “doing good,” controlling for grade level. As hypothesized, in their written responses girls, significantly more than boys, commented on engineers helping and doing good for the world, χ2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>, 107) = 4.77, p = .03. Also as hypothesized, there was no influence of grade level.Hypothesis 1c: Girls in fifth grade will be more open to considering engineering as a possible career than eighth-grade girls. We did not hypothesize a grade-level effect for boys. We analyzed participants’ written explanations for indications of how they personally related to engineering and whether or not they saw engineering as something with which they could connect (Cohen’s κ = .82). The content analysis divided participants’ responses into those indicating a positive personal identification, defined as personal interest in doing or having a career in engineering, a negative personal identification, defined as explicitly stating that they would not like to do engineering or that they would like a different career, or no personal identification, statements about engineering indicating no personal preference or connection.To examine the relationship between participants’ gender and their responses, we conducted a χ2 test for independence controlling for grade level. This analysis violated the assumption of the expected cell size due to the low frequencies in several categories. As a result, we ran individual χ2 analyses for gender and grade level. Contrary to our hypotheses, the analyses did not indicate a relationship between the nature of the responses and gender, χ2(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>, 107) = 4.07, p = .13. There was a relationship between the nature of the responses and grade level, χ2(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>, 107) = 6.54, p = .04, such that for the fifth graders, 21% of the participants indicated a positive personal identification and another 18% indicated a negative personal identification. In contrast, for the eighth graders, only 11% of the participants indicated a positive personal identification, and 39% indicated a negative personal identification. To gain a more complete understanding of the nature of the negative and neutral responses, we coded for positive impressions of engineering within those responses that indicated a negative personal identification (Cohen’s κ = .91) or no personal identification (Cohen’s κ = .70). Of the 29 participants across all groups who indicated a negative personal identification, 10 of them (35%) also indicated some positive impressions of engineering (seven eighth-grade girls and one fifth-grade girl, and one fifth-grade boy and one eighth-grade boy). Due to the extremely small frequencies, a χ2 analysis was not performed.Among the 60 participants (33 boys and 27 girls) who did not indicate any personal identification, 32 expressed positive impressions of engineering. A χ2 test for independence was run to examine the relationship between participants’ gender and the responses, controlling for grade level; this analysis violated the assumption of the expected cell size. As a result, we ran individual χ2 analyses for gender and grade level. There was no relationship between the nature of the responses and grade level, χ2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>, 60) = .02, p = .89. There was a relationship between the nature of the responses and gender, χ2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>, 60) = 5.73, p = .02, such that 70% of girls who did not indicate a personal identification with engineering still expressed positive perceptions of engineering; 40% of the boys in this subgroup indicated positive impressions of engineering, suggesting some support for the hypothesis.Comparisons of Video and Non-Video Groups’ Views of Engineers and Engineering Influenced by Gender and Grade Level 6 Months LaterTo determine the effects of exposure to the video on participants’ longer lasting perceptions of engineers and their work, we conducted analyses using mixed-measure, four-way analyses of covariance on the pairs of contrasting statements targeted by the video completed during the spring session. The between-participant independent variables were treatment (exposure to video vs. no video), gender (boys vs. girls), grade (fifth vs. eighth), and the within-participant groups were the contrasting statements about engineering (Item 1 vs. Item 2). The dependent variable was the level of agreement with the statements about engineering at Time 2. To control for individual differences in participants’ attitudes toward engineering in the fall (prior to the video exposure), the baseline responses to the two statements in each analysis were included as covariates. The analyses included only those participants who responded to both items fall and spring and who had not checked the don’t know option. All statistically significant main effects and interactions are reported below.Hypothesis 2a: Participants who watched the video showing engineers at work, compared to controls, who had not seen the video, will have a broader view of engineering. The effect will be influenced by gender and grade level. To examine whether exposure to the video leveled the contrast between working with things and working with people, we looked at two pairs of contrasting items: the statement pair, “engineers design things that help the environment” and “engineers design things that help people” as well as the statement pair, “engineers like finding out how things work” and “engineers like to work with people.” For the first pair of items, 76 participants were excluded from the analysis. The Time 1 responses for both “engineers design things that help the environment,” F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>, 101) = 8.81, p = .004, and “engineers design things that help people,” F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>, 101) = 9.04, p = .002, were significant covariates, so both variables were included in the analysis as controls. This analysis supported the hypothesis; it yielded a three-way Treatment by Gender × Grade interaction, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>, 101) = 5.00, p = .03, η2 = .05, such that the effect of the video was different for boys and girls depending on their grade level. For the girls, the impact was at the fifth-grade level. Fifth-grade girls who saw the video (M = 4.40) agreed with the items more than the control group (M =3.47), but at the eighth-grade level there was no difference between the responses of the video group (M = 3.87) and the control group (3.95). For the boys, the pattern was reversed. At the fifth-grade level, there were no differences between boys who saw the video (M = 4.39) and those who did not (M = 4.09), but there was a difference at the eighth-grade level. The eighth-grade boys in the video group (M = 4.08) agreed with the items more than the control group (M = 3.55).For the second pair of items, 77 participants were excluded from the analyses. The Time 1 responses for “engineers like finding out how things work” was not a significant covariate, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>, 100) = 4.26, p = .12. The responses for “engineers like to work with people,” F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>, 100) = 3.64, p = .01, was a significant covariate, so that the variable was included in the analysis as a control. This analysis provided partial support for the hypothesis. The video did not affect participants’ responses, but the analysis yielded a significant two-way Gender × Grade interaction, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>, 100) = 4.68, p = .03, η2 = .05. There was no difference between the responses of fifth- and eighth-grade girls (M = 3.91 and M = 4.01, respectively). Fifth-grade boys reported a level of agreement (M = 4.10) similar to the girls, whereas eighth-grade boys reported a lower level of agreement (M = 3.65), but the differences between these means are small.Hypothesis 2b: Participants who watched the video, compared to controls who had not seen the video, will hold fewer traditional sex-role and social-norm stereotypes related to engineering. This effect will vary by gender and grade level. To look at the perceptions of engineering related to gender roles, we compared responses to two sets of items. The first set of items assessed ideas about adults, “engineers are men” and “engineers are women”; whereas the second set assessed attitudes toward peers, “girls think about being engineers” and “boys think about being engineers.” For the first pair of items, “engineers are men” and “engineers are women,” 66 participants were excluded from the analysis. The Time 1 responses for “engineers are men,” F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>, 111) = 3.215, p = .28, was not a significant covariate. The Time 1 responses for “engineers are women”, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>, 111) = 2.40, p = .05, was a significant covariate, so this variable was included in the analysis as a control. The analysis yielded a significant main effect of the contrasting statements, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>, 111) = 6.65, p = .01, η2 = .05, such that participants agreed more that “engineers are men” (M = 3.32) than “engineers are women” (M = 2.77). However, this main effect was qualified by a significant two-way Statement × Treatment interaction, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>, 111) = 4.25, p = .04, η2 = .04. Participants in both the video and control conditions agreed equally with the statement “engineers are men” (MV = 3.34 and MC = 3.36). A different pattern emerged for the statement “engineers are women.” Participants exposed to the video agreed with the statement significantly more than participants who had not seen the video (MV = 3.00 and MC = 2.48). Thus, the hypothesis was supported.For the second pair of items, “girls think about being engineers” and “boys think about being engineers,” 90 participants were excluded from the analyses. The Time 1 responses for both “boys think about being engineers,” F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>, 87) = 15.05, p < .001, and “girls think about being engineers,” F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>, 87) = 5.19, p = .03, were significant covariates, so both variables were included in the analysis as controls. The analysis yielded a significant main effect for these items, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>, 87) = 4.23, p = .04, η2 = .05, such that participants agreed more that “boys think about engineering” (M = 3.59) than “girls think about engineering” (M = 2.60). This main effect was qualified by a three-way Statement × Treatment × Gender interaction, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>, 87) = 5.49, p = .04, η2 = .05. Girls in both the video exposure (M = 3.62) and control groups (M = 3.79) and boys both in the video exposure (M = 3.55) and control groups (M = 3.25) reported similar levels of agreement for the statement “boys think about engineering.” There was a different pattern for the statement “girls think about engineering,” with boys and girls showing opposite patterns of responses. Boys in the control group (M = 2.62) agreed with the statement more than the boys in the video group (M = 2.35), while the girls in the video group (M = 3.04) agreed with the statement more than the girls in the control group (M = 2.46). These results also supported the hypothesis.The last contrasting pair was “engineers are mothers” and “engineers are fathers.” For this pair of items, 74 participants were excluded from the analyses. The Time 1 responses for “engineers are mothers,” F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref24">1</reflink>, 103) = 3.00, p = .09, was not a significant covariate. The Time 1 responses for “engineers are fathers,” F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>, 103) = 5.19, p = .03, was a significant covariate, so this variable was included in the analysis as a control. These results partially supported the hypothesis. The analysis revealed a Statement × Gender interaction, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>, 103) = 4.90, p = .03, such that girls and boys responded similarly to the item “engineers are fathers” (M = 3.29 and M = 3.34, respectively). For the item “engineers are mothers,” the responses from both groups were significantly lower than the responses to the father item, though the girls’ (M = 2.87) responses were significantly higher than the boys’ (M = 2.64).DiscussionThe video served as a method to elicit young adolescents’ ideas and perceptions about engineers and to prompt students to think about engineering as a future career possibility.Early Exposure: Grade and Gender IntersectThe results reinforce previous research, showing that early exposure is likely to have divergent consequences for girls and boys. There was support for Hypothesis 1a that more girls than boys would report feeling different after seeing the video. Additionally, in the qualitative responses about why they felt differently, fifth-grade girls, significantly more than fifth-grade boys, indicated that they had learned something new about what engineers did. Several mentioned that before seeing the video, they knew nothing about engineering. This lack of familiarity may be a reason they have not formed opinions about engineering and so are more open to the field. There was no effect of gender for the eighth graders; the eighth graders’ written responses seemed to indicate they already knew about engineering. We also hypothesized (Hypothesis 1c) that fifth-grade girls would be more open to engineering than eighth-grade girls, but the results are equivocal. Among the fifth graders, equal numbers indicated that they wanted or did not want engineering. However, nearly 4 times more eighth-grade participants rejected engineering as a career than those who chose it.There was a difference between fifth- and eighth graders’ personal identifications with engineering, but it is important to note that the statements of 61% of the fifth graders and 50% of the eighth graders expressed no personal identification. Girls, who did not identify with engineering as a career, significantly more than boys, indicated positive impressions of engineering. Even those who indicated that they wanted a different job may still have positive impressions of engineering, suggesting the importance of keeping possibilities open. Many who rejected engineering as a possible job for them personally acknowledged the good work of engineers.Engineering as a Helping ProfessionBased on the reported observations of young adolescents (McIntyre & Jennings, 2009), we hypothesized (Hypothesis 1b) that “helping” was a feature that could serve as a bridge between engineering and girls’ self-images. The results reported here provide clear support for this hypothesis. When writing about the video, a greater percentage of girls, in contrast with boys, mentioned helping. The ideas that engineers help people and do good things for the world were mentioned by half of the girls, suggesting that helping is something that they particularly noticed and remembered. Helping connects a sense of agency and communion, and the participants’ responses raised questions about this widely used theoretical dichotomy about gender. Halpern (summarizing Diekman, Brown, Johnston, and Clark, 2010 research), noted the contradiction, “It is ironic, she writes, that STEM fields hold the key to helping, but they are usually regarded as unrelated to communal goals” (Halpern, 2012, p. 264). The results also raised questions about the consequences of pairing “helping” with engineering for boys in the context of a gendered workforce. The 10- and 11-year-old boys in Archer and colleagues’ (2009) male focus group viewed science as masculine, fitting them, but not girls. A video showing how engineers design skateboards may have had greater appeal to fifth-grade boys devoted to athletics. In middle childhood, boys may reject occupations associated with women, and girls may be more open to considering nongender, stereotypic occupations (Liben & Bigler, 2002). However, even though fewer boys than girls mentioned helping, boys too commented on engineers helping and making the water safe.What Young Adolescents Think About Engineering: Longer-Lasting EffectsThere was support for the Hypothesis (2a) that gender and grade level would influence participants’ perceptions of engineering, with those exposed to the video, in contrast with those who had not seen the video, holding a more comprehensive view. Perceptions of engineers as helpers were different for girls and boys. Younger, but not older, girls and older, but not younger, boys who saw the video agreed with both statements more than their counterparts who had not seen the video. The video focused on how engineers help; so it is not surprising that those who watched the video had a better understanding of engineering as a helping profession. Still, the interaction with gender and age is interesting. The responses of the fifth-grade girls in the control group were particularly low, whereas the responses of those in the video group were particularly high. The eighth-grade girls in both groups gave moderately high ratings, but it seems that the fifth-grade girls needed the video to make the connection between engineering and helping, whereas the eighth graders did not. For the boys, it is interesting to note that the eighth graders agreed with the statements less than the fifth graders. Both fifth-grade groups reported high levels of agreement that engineers help, but eighth-grade boys who had not seen the video had especially low levels of agreement. The helping focus may encourage interest early for girls but later for boys.Traditional Stereotypes About Engineers and EngineeringThere was support for Hypothesis 2b that participants who saw the video would hold fewer traditional ideas about engineers and engineering than their control counterparts. Although the participants who watched the video, like the controls, agreed more with “engineers are men” than “engineers are women,” girls who saw the video agreed significantly more with “engineers are women” than their control counterparts. Both groups agreed more with “boys think about being engineers.” However, girls exposed to the video agreed significantly more than the girls who did not see the video that “girls think about being engineers.” The same pattern describes responses to statements that “engineers are fathers” and “engineers are mothers.” It is striking that a simple video showing a female and male engineer working together could break through traditional gender stereotypes. Six months after watching the video, girls believed engineers can be women and mothers, and that girls can think about being engineers.Lessons for Research and InterventionThis study is one of the first efforts to investigate perceptions of engineering in late childhood and early adolescence. The fifth- and eighth-grade participants in this sample have had little, if any, direct exposure to engineering. Although very few have engineering in mind as a future occupation, they have ideas about the field of engineering and what engineers do. They were able to express these ideas, and a substantial number of participants wrote why they thought engineering was, or was not, a “fit” for them. For most, the answer is “no”; they would rather have a different job. However, participants were drawn from a single suburban school district and may underrepresent fifth- and eighth graders’ awareness of engineering as a possible career. Only one video was shown, and other videos could well appeal differently to boys and girls at different ages. We selected the Clean Water video particularly because it featured adolescents speaking about their experience of engineering. National Engineers Week (2013) has developed a number of videos that highlight diverse possibilities in engineering and are likely to appeal to different target populations. As the results of this study suggest, interactions between gender and age influence the consideration of engineering as a possible career. Interventions based on the perspectives of young adolescents are likely to be more effective than interventions presented from the perspective of adult professionals. We think the entire context of watching the video, responding in writing, and then having a chance to discuss their ideas in class, may prompt students to think about their future careers. Developmental pathways are dynamic, and a variety of methods are needed to gain a more complete picture of what is on the minds of adolescents.Learning about engineering does not mean that students will want to become engineers. Researchers working within different theoretical frameworks have provided ample evidence that multiple variables exert influence on developmental pathways. They have also converged on the importance of interest. In late childhood and early adolescence, young people are exploring their interests and consolidating a sense of self in relation to future work. Programs conducted in familiar classroom environments may serve as relatively inexpensive, yet effective, methods to open up the diverse pathways engineering offers to a broader group of young people.AcknowledgmentWe are pleased to thank Gerry Garing, STEM administrator, and the teachers of the Mohonasen School District for their welcoming assistance along with our student assistants. We also thank the reviewers for their guidance.Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.FundingThe author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The initial research was supported by a Schacht Grant from The Sage Colleges.Note1.Frequencies are expressed as percentages to allow easier comparisons across cells with different values.ReferencesACT Policy Report. (2006). Developing the STEM education pipeline. Retrieved fromwww.act.org/path/policy/index.htmlAmerican Association of University Women. (2000). Educating girls in the new computer age. Tech-Savvy. Retrieved fromwww.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/TechSavvy.pdfAmerican Society for Quality. (2005–2008). Engineering image problem could fuel shortage. Retrieved fromhttp://<ulink href="http://www.asq.org/media-room/press-releases/2009/20090122ArcherL.DeWittJ.OsborneJ.DillonJ.WillisB.WongB">www.asq.org/media-room/press-releases/2009/20090122ArcherL.DeWittJ.OsborneJ.DillonJ.WillisB.WongB</ulink>. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11 year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94, 617–639. doi:10.1002/sce.20399BeierM.RittmayerA. (2009). Motivational factors in STEM: Interest and self-concept. In BogueB.CadyE. (Eds.), Applying Research to Practice (ARP) Resources. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/ARPresources.aspxBleekerM">http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/ARPresources.aspxBleekerM</ulink>. M.JacobsJ. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science. Do mothers’ beliefs matter 12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 97–109. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.97CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2011, February 7). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. PNAS Early Edition. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108ChoS.GoodmanB.OppenheimerJ.CodlingJ.RobinsonT. (2009). Images of women in STEM fields. Journal of Science Communication, 8, 1–5.CvencekD.MeltzoffA. N.GreenwaldA. G. (2011). Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2010.01529.xDiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between roles and goals: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057. doi:10.1177/0956797610377342DimondJ. P.GuzdialM. (2008). More than paradoxes to offer: Exploring motivations to attract women to computing. Technical Report, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.EcclesJ. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and environmental fit. In LernerR. M.SteinbergL. (Eds), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 125–153). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.EcclesJ. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In ElliotA. J.DweckC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford Press.EcclesJ. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.EcclesJ. S.JacobsJ.HaroldR. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183–201. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01929.xFredricksJ.EcclesJ. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519–533. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.519Girls Incorporated. (2013). Girls Inc. Operation SMART. Retrieved fromhttp://<ulink href="http://www.girlsinc.org/about/programs/operation-smart.htmlGirl">www.girlsinc.org/about/programs/operation-smart.htmlGirl</ulink> Scouts of the United States of America. (2013). Girl Scout Research Institute. Retrieved fromwww.girlscouts.org/research/GottfredsonL. S. (2005). Applying Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise in career guidance and counseling. In BrownS. D.LentR. W. (Eds.), Career development and Counseling: Putting theory and research to work (71–100). New York, NY: John Wiley.GottfredsonL. S.LapanR. (1997). Assessing gender-based circumscription of occupational aspirations. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 419–441. doi:10.1177/106907279700500404HalpernD. F. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.HarackiewiczJ. M.RozekC. S.HullemanC. S.HydeJ. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological Science, 23, 899–906.HarterS. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87–97.JacobsJ. E.Davis-KeanP.BleekerM. M.EcclesJ. S.MalanchuckO. (2005). “I can, but I don’t want to”: The impact of parents, interests, and activities on gender differences in math. In GallagherA.KaufmanJ. (Eds), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 246–263). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.JenkinsE.NelsonN. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students attitudes toward secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23, 41–57.KonradA. M.RitchieJ. E.LiebP.CorrigallE. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593–641.LentR. W.BrownS. D.HackettG. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In BrownD. (Ed.) Career choice and development (pp. 255–311). New York, NY: John Wiley.LewinK. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. The American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868–897. doi:10.1086/218177LibenL. S.BiglerR. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67, i–viii, 1–147.LippaR. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality, 4, 996–1009.MalteseA. V.TaiR. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95, 877–907. doi:10.1002/sce.20441MargolisJ.FisherA. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in engineering. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.McIntyreJ. G.JenningsS. (April, 2009). Urban adolescents’ possible selves in LEGORobotics camp. Poster presented at Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO.MillerP. H. (2003, July). Adolescent girls and the culture of science. In S. V. Rosser (Chair), Gender, science, technology, and inequalities. Colloquium conducted at the 2nd International Knowledge and Discourse Conference, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.National Engineers Week. (2013). Discover engineering. Retrieved fromwww.discoverengineering.orgPipherM. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York, NY: Putnam.President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012, February). Engage to excel: Producing one million college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Retrieved fromhttp://<ulink href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final%5f2-25-12.pdfRiegle-CrumbC.MooreC.Ramos-WadaA">www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final%5f2-25-12.pdfRiegle-CrumbC.MooreC.Ramos-WadaA</ulink>. (2011). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Education, 95, 3, 458–476. doi:10.1002/sce.2043RojewskiJ. W.YangB. (1997). Longitudinal analysis of select influences on adolescents’ vocational aspirations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 375–410.SavickasM. L. (2002). Reinvigorating the study of careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 381–385.SchoonI. (2001). Teenage job aspirations and career attainment in adulthood: A 17-year follow-up study of teenagers who aspired to become scientists, health professionals, or engineers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 124–132. doi:10.1080/01650250042000186SimpkinsS.Davis-KeanP.EcclesJ. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42, 70–83.SteeleC.AronsonL. (1995). Stereotype threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.TaiR. H.LiuC. Q.MalteseA. V.FanX. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144. doi:10.1126/science.1128690The Society of Women Engineers. (2013). K-12 outreach. Retrieved fromhttp://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/index.php/k-12-outreachTiedemannJ. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictors of children’s concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 144–151.UseemE. L. (1992). Middle school and math groups: Parents’ involvement in children’s placement. Sociology of Education, 56, 263–269. doi:10.2307/2112770ValianV. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT.VarmaR.HahnH. (2008). Gender and the pipeline metaphor in computing. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33, 3–11.WattH. M. G.EcclesJ. S. (2008). Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1080/03043790701745936WeisgramE. S.BiglerR. S. (2006). Girls and science careers: The role of altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 326–348.WGBH Boston Education Foundation. (2012). PBS design squad nation. Retrieved fromhttp://pbskids.org/designsquad/ZeldinA. L.PajaresF. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 215–246.</p> <aug> <p>By Sybillyn Jennings; Julie Guay McIntyre and Sarah E. Butler</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref6"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1049063
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: What Young Adolescents Think about Engineering: Immediate and Longer Lasting Impressions of a Video Intervention
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jennings%2C+Sybillyn%22">Jennings, Sybillyn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McIntyre%2C+Julie+Guay%22">McIntyre, Julie Guay</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Sarah+E%2E%22">Butler, Sarah E.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Career+Development%22"><i>Journal of Career Development</i></searchLink>. Feb 2015 42(1):3-18.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Adolescents%22">Early Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering%22">Engineering</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cohort+Analysis%22">Cohort Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Interests%22">Science Interests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Interests%22">Student Interests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocational+Interests%22">Vocational Interests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+Research%22">Qualitative Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stereotypes%22">Stereotypes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Control+Groups%22">Control Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experimental+Groups%22">Experimental Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitude+Change%22">Attitude Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Films%22">Instructional Films</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/0894845314555124
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0894-8453
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: To explore young adolescents' interest in engineering as a future career, we examined the influence of gender and grade level on participants' (N = 197, aged 10-13) views of engineering. One group (107 students) viewed a brief engineering video and wrote why they felt the same or different about engineering following the video. Qualitative analyses revealed that some reported viewing engineering differently and more positively, although most did not want to be an engineer. Girls, more than boys, noted that engineers helped people. Six months after the video intervention, participants completed quantitative measures about engineering. Quantitative analyses comparing responses of participants who had seen the video, with those who had not, revealed that the video dispelled some stereotyped beliefs, but not others, with grade-level and gender effects. The findings highlight the importance of listening to adolescents' views about engineering as a field and as a future career.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 59
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1049063
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1049063
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/0894845314555124
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 3
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Early Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cohort Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Interests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Interests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocational Interests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Qualitative Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stereotypes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Control Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experimental Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitude Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Films
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 8
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: What Young Adolescents Think about Engineering: Immediate and Longer Lasting Impressions of a Video Intervention
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jennings, Sybillyn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McIntyre, Julie Guay
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butler, Sarah E.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0894-8453
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 42
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Career Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1