Motivational Pathways to STEM Career Choices: Using Expectancy-Value Perspective to Understand Individual and Gender Differences in STEM Fields.

By Ming-Te Wang, Jessica L Degol. Developmental Review, 2013

826 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/58a86789a21fce2b4032b86f088a2479f7bd2760

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Interventions in education to prevent STEM pipeline leakage (2018, methodology): “These studies have resulted in a number of meta-reviews and theoretical models describing factors at environmental, school and student level that are related with interest and persistence in STEM education (e.g. Wang & Degol, 2013).”
Motivation in transition: Development and roles of expectancy, task values, and costs in early college engineering. (2019, background): “…motivation in supporting STEM persistence in college is an area of national focus (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016; Wang & Degol, 2013), it is important to understand how personal and contextual factors can support or undermine positive development of motivation in…”
Not Feeling Good in STEM: Effects of Stereotype Activation and Anticipated Affect on Women’s Career Aspirations (2017, background): “In addition, based on recent research suggesting not only math ability but also verbal ability matters in STEM career choice (Wang et al. 2013), we took mathematical and verbal domain identification into account for analyses of math-related career motivation and looked at incremental effects of the ”
Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others? (2017, neutral): “…Gürer & Camp, 2002; Halpern et al., 2007; Howell, 1993; Ong, Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011; Saucerman & Vasquez, 2014; Shapiro & Sax, 2011; Singh, Allen, Scheckler, & Darlington, 2007; Sonnert, 2006; Spelke, 2005; Teague, 1997; M. T. Wang & Degol, 2013; Wentling & Thomas, 2004; Whitley, 1997).”
Towards an Understanding of STEM Engagement: a Review of the Literature on Motivation and Academic Emotions (2019, background): “…found to be important for students’ STEM engagement, performance, coursework selections, and career aspirations (Andersen & Chen, 2016; Guo et al., 2017; Hiller & Kitsantas, 2014; Petersen & Hyde, 2017; Robnett & Leaper, 2013; see Wang & Degol, 2013 for a review) over and beyond prior achievement.”
Gender Bias in STEM Fields (2016, methodology): “It merits noting that these social–contextual barriers are thought to present challenges regardless of whether they are objectively documented or subjectively perceived (Lent & Brown, 2006; Settles, Cortina, Buchanan, & Miner, 2013; Wang & Degol, 2013).”
The Motivational Theory of Role Modeling: How Role Models Influence Role Aspirants’ Goals (2015, neutral): “…are supported by more than 50 years of evidence from a variety of contexts (e.g., Atkinson, 1957; Brooks & Betz, 1990; Eccles, 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Feather, 1982; Maddux, Norton, & Stoltenberg, 1986; Nagengast et al., 2011; Trautwein et al., 2012; Vroom, 1964, 1966; Wang & Degol, 2013).”
Standing in the Gaps: Examining the Effects of Early Gifted Education on Black Girl Achievement in STEM (2017, background): “Although surveys historically show that women are less interested in STEM fields (Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, & Tai, 2012; M. T. Wang & Degol, 2013), Black girls are unique in this respect because they historically express positive dispositions toward STEM content and professions compared with White…”
Helping and Hindering Undergraduate Women’s STEM Motivation: Experiences With STEM Encouragement, STEM-Related Gender Bias, and Sexual Harassment (2018, background): “It is notable that average gender differences in STEM-related motivation are generally documented prior to women’s dropping out of the STEM pipeline (Wang & Degol, 2013).”
The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education (2018, background): “Our proposal that students’ own rational decisions play a key role in explaining the educational-genderequality paradox is inspired by the expectancy-value theory (Eccles, 1983; Wang & Degol, 2013).”