See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233359605

Students' Preconceptions and Perceptions of Science-Oriented Studies

Article in International Journal of Science Education · September 2013

DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.679324

CITATIONS READS

12 337

4 authors:

Hanke Korpershoek Hans Kuyper

University of Groningen University of Groningen
78 PUBLICATIONS 1,140 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 3,289 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roel Bosker Margaretha P. C. van der Werf

University of Groningen University of Groningen
139 PUBLICATIONS 20,330 CITATIONS 117 PUBLICATIONS 4,078 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hanke Korpershoek on 06 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Groningen]
On: 09 September 2013, At: 01:18
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Students’ Preconceptions and

Perceptions of Science-Oriented
Studies
a a a
Hanke Korpershoek , Hans Kuyper , Roel Bosker & Greetje van
a
der Werf
a
Groningen Institute for Educational Research (GION), University
of Groningen , Groningen , The Netherlands
Published online: 01 May 2012.

To cite this article: Hanke Korpershoek , Hans Kuyper , Roel Bosker & Greetje van der Werf (2013)
Students’ Preconceptions and Perceptions of Science-Oriented Studies, International Journal of
Science Education, 35:14, 2356-2375, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.679324

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.679324

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013
 International Journal of Science Education, 2013
Vol. 35, No. 14, 2356– 2375, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.679324

Students’ Preconceptions and

Perceptions of Science-Oriented
Studies
Hanke Korpershoek∗ , Hans Kuyper, Roel Bosker and
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Greetje van der Werf

Groningen Institute for Educational Research (GION), University of Groningen,
Groningen, The Netherlands

Do non-science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students’ views about STEM
studies correspond with how STEM students actually perceive these studies? This paper deals with
this issue by comparing higher education students’ attitudes towards STEM studies between those
who actually did a STEM study and those who did not. The attitudes of the first category of students
have been referred to as perceptions and the attitudes of the second category as preconceptions. The
study included 1,935 students in higher education. The results confirm both small and large
differences between the preconceptions and perceptions, and show significant differences
between suitably qualified students (i.e. eligible for STEM studies) and other students. At the
end of this paper, we will discuss the implications of this study for future research and offer some
suggestions for practice.

Keywords: Attitudes; Perceptions; Preconceptions; STEM studies

Despite the reasonable science proficiency levels of students in most Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development countries, schools fail to interest students
in science-related careers (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment [OECD], 2009). The majority of the students in secondary education are
aware of the importance of science (Parkinson, Hendley, & Tanner, 1998), but
many of them tend to choose other disciplines when continuing their study in
higher education. One of the main reasons for this phenomenon is that many students

∗
Corresponding author: GION, University of Groningen Grote Rozenstraat 3, Groningen 9712
TG, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2357

do not enjoy science lessons, even if they perform well. Although many secondary
education students who perform well have a general interest in a scientific career,
45% are still not interested in a science study (OECD, 2009). As a response to Euro-
pean agreements aimed at increasing students’ entry in so-called science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) studies in higher education (European Com-
mission, 2002, 2004), the Dutch government attempts to increase the number of stu-
dents enrolling in these disciplines (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science,
2004). In addition, the government seeks to reduce the imbalance between men
and women within this sector. A complicating factor is the Dutch educational
system, in which students have to decide even at a relatively young age about their
future career path. At the end of the ninth grade, when they are on average 15
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

years old, students must choose one out of four combinations of school subjects
(the so-called study profiles1). The study profile which includes the combination of
advanced mathematics, chemistry, and physics (the science and technology study
profile) is the best preparation for a science-oriented study in higher education. Stu-
dents who have chosen a less science-oriented study profile (e.g. the science and
health profile) are eligible only with additional requirements; they generally have to
take additional advanced physics courses to meet the entry criteria. Hence, the
study profile choice in secondary education is the first moment in the system when
sufficiently talented students leave the STEM pipeline (Van Langen & Dekkers,
2005). In this way, the educational system works as a narrowing funnel; at each
choice moment, the possibilities for a transition to a STEM career decrease (De
Grip & Willems, 2003). The first moment is the study profile choice in the ninth
grade, the second the study choice made at the end of secondary education, and
the third the career choice after graduation. Our study has particularly focused on
the second moment, that is, the study choice at the end of secondary education.
Why do so many students whose performance in maths/science is fairly sufficient
not take STEM studies into consideration while others do? Negative attitudes influ-
ence the perceived suitability of particular studies or careers. Several research projects
indicate negative attitudes of a considerable number of students towards science-
oriented studies; they consider these studies as being uninteresting (in comparison
to other studies), too demanding and difficult, too much technology- or theory-
driven or too narrowly focused (Fuller, 1991; Second Phase Advisory Point, 2005;
Verhorst & Verhulst, 1993; Warps, 2001). Apart from these content-based preconcep-
tions, students, in particular girls, argue that the career possibilities in this area are
unattractive in comparison to those offered by other studies. Lightbody and Durndell
(1996) found that students partly choose their careers by matching their own self-
concept, or identity, with their representation of an occupational role (see also
Markus & Nurius, 1986). Many women favour studies and careers that contribute
to playing a useful social role in society, for example, a law or medicine study (Light-
body & Siann, 1997; Lips, 1992). In addition, several students feel that, although they
have completed mathematics and science courses in secondary education, they are not
sufficiently capable of pursuing a science-oriented career. De Grip and Willems
(2003) established that girls hardly choose technological or science-oriented
 2358 H. Korpershoek et al.

studies, even when their grades in mathematics and science subjects are high. Trusty
and Robinson (2000) report that girls base their postsecondary educational choices
on their reading performance rather than on their mathematics skills. Unfamiliarity
with the content of STEM studies may cause the sufficiently capable students to
drift (e.g. students who have completed advanced maths and science courses in sec-
ondary education) in other directions. Moreover, the full scope of career options actu-
ally available is often broader than students’ knowledge of the actual range of possible
study choices. Through socialization by peers, parents, and teachers, students’ per-
sonal set of choice options often remains limited (Eccles, 2005; Gottfredson, 1981;
Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). In the light of the current desire to increase the
number of students who opt for a STEM study, a career in science and technology
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

should not be eliminated simply because of a lack of information or stereotypical

ideas (Packard & Nguyen, 2003). Accordingly, in view of adequate counselling, it is
important to know the views of (sufficiently capable) students with respect to
STEM studies and to establish which ideas are, to some extent, irrational. Are
STEM studies really uninteresting or too narrowly focused? This is one of the main
topics of the current study.
While some students choose a science-oriented study and thus have some ideas
about its advantages and disadvantages, others have no experience in this field (e.g.
they study economics). We have dealt with this issue by comparing the attitudes
towards STEM studies of those with experience in STEM with the attitudes of
those without experience in STEM. For the first group, we could measure the stu-
dents’ attitudes towards their current STEM study on the basis of their perceptions,
which—although in essence subjective—were based on real experiences. For those
who had no experience with a STEM curriculum, we could only measure their
ideas about this type of studies, usually based on more general notions or expec-
tations, for example on the expected difficulty level. For the sake of interpretation,
we refer to preconceptions when we talk about the attitudes of students who did not par-
ticipate in a STEM study. Students’ preconceptions of STEM studies are self-gener-
ated, resulting from inference processes which are either indirectly formed by
accepting information from external sources (e.g. friends, television, and books) or
through direct observations in prior maths/science classes (Ajzen & Cote, 2008). As
to non-STEM students who have taken maths/science lessons in primary and second-
ary education, they may have visited an orientation day of a STEM study, they may
have read additional information in folders or on the Internet, or talked with their
parents and peers about these studies. Non-STEM students’ preconceptions can
therefore be biased. They may be irrational, based on invalid or selective information,
self-serving, or otherwise in contrast with reality (Ajzen & Cote, 2008). A comparison
of non-STEM students’ preconceptions and STEM students’ perceptions provides
useful information about possible discrepancies between expectations and experi-
ences. If, for example, student advisors and teachers are aware of certain discrepancies
(e.g. between preconceived and perceived career possibilities of STEM studies), they
can use this information in providing better counselling.
 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2359

The Current Study

The main objective of the present study has been to investigate to what extent
non-STEM students’ preconceptions of STEM programmes differ from STEM
students’ perceptions of these studies. STEM students’ perceptions of their
current STEM study have been used as an indicator of the ‘true’ characteristics
of STEM studies.
Since the STEM discipline is fairly broad, we made a distinction between science
studies (e.g. mathematics, physics, chemistry) and technical studies (e.g. industrial
engineering, architectural engineering, electrical engineering). Consequently, three
groups of students were examined: (A) students who chose a science study, (B) stu-
dents who opted for a technical study, and (C) students who enrolled in other
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

studies (e.g. law, medicine, and economics). Within these groups, we made a distinc-
tion between students who were ‘suitably qualified’ for STEM and those who were
not. Suitably qualified students were defined as students who have taken their final
school examinations (FSE) in secondary education in advanced mathematics, chem-
istry, and physics.2 In the Netherlands, these are students who have completed the so-
called science and technology study profile (see Note 1) (hereafter called SCIENCE),
which gives them access to all STEM studies in higher education. From now on, we
will therefore refer to suitably qualified students as SCIENCE students and to all
other students as non-SCIENCE students. We were particularly interested in the
SCIENCE students in group C, because although these students were eligible for
STEM they chose a non-STEM study in higher education. Additionally, we made
a distinction between boys and girls. All in all, these distinctions resulted in 12
groups of students (3 × 2 × 2) which are presented in Table 1.

Hypotheses
We formulated three hypotheses that concern the comparison between preconcep-
tions and perceptions. The preconceptions of the students in group C (other
studies) were compared with the perceptions of the students in groups A (science
study) and B (technical study). Since choosing a study in higher education is an
important decision for students’ future career, they are likely to choose a study in
which they feel competent and regarding which they have a positive attitude or at

Table 1. The 12 student groups included in the study

Science study (group A) Technical study (group B) Other study (group C)

SCIENCE boys SCIENCE boys SCIENCE boys

SCIENCE girls SCIENCE girls SCIENCE girls
Non-SCIENCE boys Non-SCIENCE boys Non-SCIENCE boys
Non-SCIENCE girls Non-SCIENCE girls Non-SCIENCE girls
 2360 H. Korpershoek et al.

least a more favourable one than towards other studies. Students are expected to
recognize and include the importance and consequences of their study choice in
their decision process. Therefore, they are presumed to choose the best suitable
option in terms of their abilities, interests, and future perspectives. Based on this prin-
ciple from behavioural decision theory (see for example Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), we
argued that, in general, the non-STEM students’ preconceptions of STEM studies
would be less favourable than the STEM students’ perceptions of these studies,
because the first group (non-STEM students) had not chosen a STEM study,
whereas the second group (STEM students) had. This premise formed the basis of
our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Non-STEM students’ preconceptions of STEM studies are less favourable
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

than STEM students’ perceptions of these studies.

Since we assumed SCIENCE students to have a general interest in maths- and

science-related topics, and non-SCIENCE students who had chosen a STEM
study to be highly motivated in their switch to STEM (e.g. they had to take additional
courses to become eligible for STEM), Hypothesis 2 states that:
Hypothesis 2: Non-STEM students’ preconceptions of STEM studies are more favourable
among SCIENCE students than among non-SCIENCE students, whereas STEM stu-
dents’ perceptions of STEM studies are more favourable among non-SCIENCE students
than among SCIENCE students.

And finally, because the attitudes of girls towards mathematics are generally less
positive (Frost, Hyde, & Fennema, 1994), and girls are overall less interested in
maths/science than boys (Elsworth, Harvey-Beavis, Ainley, & Fabris, 1999), we for-
mulated our third hypothesis3 as follows:
Hypothesis 3: Non-STEM girls’ preconceptions of STEM studies are less favourable than
non-STEM boys’ preconceptions of STEM studies, whereas STEM girls’ perceptions of
STEM studies are more favourable than STEM boys’ perceptions of STEM studies.

Method
Participants
The data used in this study were collected as part of a large-scale longitudinal study in
the Netherlands, the ‘Cohort Studies in Secondary Education’ (VOCL’99). In
January 2008, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to a subsample of the students
from the VOCL’99 cohort, that is, to students who had completed the secondary
school tracks A or B (the tracks that prepare students for higher education). The ques-
tionnaire addressed several topics among which were students’ study choices and
several attitudinal variables. The overall response to the questionnaire was 32%
(Rekers-Mombarg, Korpershoek, Kuyper, & van der Werf, 2010). The data used in
the present study include students from the response group who participated in a
higher education study during the data collection (i.e. higher professional education
 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2361

Table 2. Participants categorized by student group

% science study % technical study % other study

n (group A) (group B) (group C)

SCIENCE boys 201 22.4 57.2 20.4

SCIENCE girls 37 27.0 29.7 43.2
Non-SCIENCE boys 479 6.3 9.6 84.1
Non-SCIENCE girls 1,218 2.9 1.1 96.0
Total 1,935 6.2 9.6 84.2

or university; mostly second or third year students). The selection resulted in 1,935
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

students who were included in the analyses. As stated in the previous section, the
respondents included were divided into three groups: (A) students who had chosen
a science study (e.g. mathematics, physics, or chemistry; 120 students), (B) students
who had opted for a technical study (e.g. industrial engineering, architectural engin-
eering, or electrical engineering; 186 students), and (C) students who had enrolled in
other studies (e.g. medicine, law, economics; 1,629 students). Table 2 shows
additional information on the respondents included.
In the sample, girls are largely overrepresented (65%). With respect to student
study profile choice, the sample is, however, representative of the Dutch student
population, that is, 30% of all the boys and 3% of all the girls took their FSE in the
SCIENCE study profile (Statistics Netherlands, 2010). Moreover, the sample is
representative of the Dutch student population in higher education as regards their
study choice. Differences in the percentages of students enrolled in science or techni-
cal studies between our sample and the student population are less than 1% (Statistics
Netherlands, 2010).

Variables and Instruments

Study choices. In the questionnaire, students were asked in which area they studied at
that moment: science (coded group A), technical (coded group B), or another disci-
pline (coded group C). The students were also provided with the earlier mentioned
examples of particular studies within these three disciplines.

Preconceptions. The non-STEM students’ preconceptions of science-oriented

studies were measured by using 12 items. In previous research, these items were
found to be important issues for students when making educational choices. The
12 items were intended to measure 12 separate aspects of preconceptions of STEM
studies.4 The answer categories were based on a 1 –7 scale (e.g. from very few to
very much). Students were asked whether they expected science-oriented studies to
be: (1) difficult or easy (e.g. ‘Do you think that a science study is difficult or easy?’)
(2), narrow-focused or broad-oriented, (3) uninteresting or interesting, (4) including
few or many theoretical courses, (5) including few or many options to specialize in, (6)
 2362 H. Korpershoek et al.

including few or many additional choice options, (7) a study in which they would
achieve well, (8) contributing to their development in general, (9) fitting them in
general, (10) resulting in finding an attractive job within half a year after they gradu-
ate, (11) preparing them for a useful job for society, and (12) preparing them for few
or many different job opportunities. The students had to answer these questions for
both science and technical studies. Students of groups A and B (science-oriented
studies) did not have to respond to these questions. For six students, some of the
science study item scores were not available. This was the case with 15 students for
the technical study items.

Perceptions. The students’ perceptions of their studies were measured by using items
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

that were similar to the 12 items listed in the previous paragraph (e.g. ‘Do you find
your study difficult or easy?’), again with answer category scales from 1 to 7. For
six students, some of the item scores were not available.

Sex. Sex (girls coded 0; boys coded 1) was measured in an earlier stage of the longi-
tudinal VOCL’99 study, namely in the first year of secondary education (seventh
grade). This information was provided by the schools.

Study profiles. At the end of ninth grade, students preparing for higher education
choose one out of four possible combinations of school subjects, called ‘study pro-
files’, in which they take their FSE. Next to science and technology (SCIENCE), stu-
dents can choose science and health (HEALTH), economics and society
(ECONOMY), or culture and society (CULTURE), or a combination of two profiles.
Apart from subjects that are common in all profiles (e.g. Dutch and English
language), SCIENCE and HEALTH students take their FSE in advanced mathemat-
ics, chemistry, and physics. In the HEALTH profile, less time is spent on these sub-
jects, as their content is more elementary and less science-oriented than in the
SCIENCE profile. The HEALTH profile also includes biology. The ECONOMY
and CULTURE profiles roughly consist of applied mathematics (both), history
(both), economics (ECONOMY), and modern languages (CULTURE). For the
present study, we divided the students into suitably qualified students (i.e. for entering
STEM studies) and not suitably qualified students, that is, into SCIENCE students
and non-SCIENCE students, respectively.

Results
Non-STEM Students’ Preconceptions of STEM Studies
We first present the descriptive results concerning non-STEM students’ preconcep-
tions of science and technical studies. Table 3 presents the results for group C students
(i.e. students who did not enrol in a science-oriented study). The overall standard
deviations have been included in the final column.
 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2363

Table 3. Students’ preconceptions (group C) of science and technical studies (means and standard
deviations)

SCIENCE Non-SCIENCE Boys Girls Total

Science studies
Difficulty level 3.1 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.2 (1.1)
Varied content 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.3 (1.4)
Interesting 4.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 (1.7)
Theoretical courses 5.9 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.7 (1.2)
Specialization options 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.7 (1.5)
Options to choose 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 (1.4)
Achievement 4.2 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.9 (1.6)
General development 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.6 (1.4)
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Fits me 3.7 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.5 (1.5)

Job within half a year 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 (1.4)
Job useful for society 4.7 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.2 (1.3)
Different job opportunities 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 (1.4)

Technical studies
Difficulty level 3.1 2.2 2.7 2.0 2.2 (1.1)
Varied content 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.1 (1.4)
Interesting 4.5 3.0 3.8 2.8 3.1 (1.7)
Theoretical courses 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 (1.4)
Specialization options 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.2 5.3 (1.2)
Options to choose 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.8 (1.1)
Achievement 4.6 2.8 3.5 2.6 2.8 (1.5)
General development 4.4 3.9 4.1 3.8 3.9 (1.3)
Fits me 4.3 2.4 3.1 2.2 2.4 (1.4)
Job within half a year 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 (1.2)
Job useful for society 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 (1.2)
Different job opportunities 5.2 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 (1.2)

In general, the students’ preconceptions of STEM studies are positive (i.e. scores .
4, which is the centre of the Likert scale), both for specialization options and options to
choose as well as for the job-related items and the content variety expected (the latter
only applying to technical studies). Whether the . 4 score on theoretical courses is a
positive or negative preconception is debatable. The score on expected difficulty
level (difficult or easy) represents (for most students) a negative preconception, as
well as the scores , 4 on the items interesting, achievement, general development, fits
me, and varied content (the latter only applying to science studies).
The students’ preconceptions of technical studies are, in the case of most items,
more favourable than those of science studies. The results show that as far as the stu-
dents were concerned, science studies have a less varied content, fewer specialization
options, fewer options to choose, and offer less favourable career perspectives. In
addition, science studies were expected to offer more theoretical courses than techni-
cal studies.
 2364 H. Korpershoek et al.

In general, SCIENCE students’ preconceptions of STEM studies are more favour-

able than non-SCIENCE students’ preconceptions of these studies. The largest
differences (≥0.5) we observed between SCIENCE and non-SCIENCE students
concerning preconceptions of both science studies and technical studies were pro-
duced by the items difficulty level, interesting, achievement, and fits me. For science
studies, this was also the case for the item job useful for society; for technical studies
it was for the item general development. In addition, we found several sex-differences
concerning students’ preconceptions of STEM studies, for which girls’ preconcep-
tions were less favourable than those of the boys. This was the case for the item
achievement (both science and technical studies), and for the items difficulty level, inter-
esting, and fits me (only for technical studies).
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Students’ Perceptions of their Current Study

In this paragraph, we present the descriptive results of the students’ perceptions of
their study at the time of our research. The aim was to examine whether the percep-
tions of groups A and B differed (e.g. science studies might be perceived as more dif-
ficult than technical studies) and whether the perceptions of groups A and B differed
from group C (e.g. both science and technical studies might be perceived as more dif-
ficult than other studies). Table 4 shows the main results based on the items for groups
A, B, C, SCIENCE students, non-SCIENCE students, boys, girls, and the overall
student group. The overall standard deviations have been included in the overall
mean per item in the final column. Since the differences between SCIENCE and
non-SCIENCE students and between the sexes largely overlap with the differences
among groups A, B, and C (see Table 2), Table 4 only presents the main differences.
We can see that in general the students’ perceptions of their current study are posi-
tive (i.e. scores . 4) and consistent across the items. The mean score on difficulty level

Table 4. Students’ perceptions of their current study (means and standard deviations)

A B C SCIENCE Non-SCIENCE Boys Girls Total

Difficulty level 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 (1.1)
Varied content 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4 (1.1)
Interesting 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8 (1.0)
Theoretical courses 5.3 5.0 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.9 (1.4)
Specialization options 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.2 4.9 5.0 (1.4)
Options to choose 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 (1.4)
Achievement 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2 (0.9)
General development 5.1 5.1 5.7 5.2 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.6 (1.1)
Fits me 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.7 (1.0)
Job within half a year 5.9 6.0 5.1 5.9 5.2 5.6 5.1 5.3 (1.3)
Job useful for society 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.8 5.7 (1.2)
Different job opportunities 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.3 (1.5)

Note: A ¼ science studies, B ¼ technical studies, C ¼ other studies.

 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2365

is slightly lower than the other mean scores. As regards difficulty level, a higher score
(i.e. very easy) is not necessarily more favourable than a lower score (i.e. very diffi-
cult), whereas for the other items a higher score is usually more favourable (e.g.
more interesting, better future perspectives). The results in Table 4 show that the stu-
dents from group C (other studies) perceive their study as less difficult than the stu-
dents from groups A (science studies) and B (technical studies). Additionally, group C
students feel that their study contributes a lot to their general development as com-
pared to the students who chose a science or technical study. Science and technique
students scored higher on perceived future perspectives of their study ( job within six
months and different job opportunities) than students engaged in other studies.
However, no substantial differences have been found among the student groups (A,
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

B, and C).

Table 5. Mean differences between perceptions and preconceptions

SCIENCE Non-SCIENCE Boys Girls Total

Science studiesa
Difficulty level 0.3 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.3
Varied content 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0
Interesting 1.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Theoretical courses 20.7 20.3 20.6 20.4 20.4
Specialization options 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6
Options to choose 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8
Achievement 0.9 2.1 1.7 2.3 2.1
General development 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.5
Fits me 1.9 3.0 2.7 3.3 3.1
Job within half a year 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4
Job useful for society 0.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3
Different job opportunities 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.4

Technical studiesb
Difficulty level 0.6 1.7 1.0 2.0 1.6
Varied content 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.2
Interesting 1.3 2.7 1.9 2.8 2.6
Theoretical courses 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.3
Specialization options 20.1 0.2 20.4 0.0 20.2
Options to choose 20.3 0.0 20.2 0.3 20.1
Achievement 0.5 2.4 1.6 2.4 2.3
General development 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.2
Fits me 1.3 3.3 2.6 3.2 3.2
Job within half a year 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Job useful for society 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6
Different job opportunities 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

a
Mean perception scores of group A (science students) minus mean preconception scores of group
C (other students).
b
Mean perception scores of group B (technical students) minus mean preconception scores of group
C (other students).
 2366 H. Korpershoek et al.

Differences Between Non-STEM Students’ Preconceptions and STEM Students’

Perceptions of STEM Studies
In this section, we present our main analysis: the comparison between non-STEM
students’ preconceptions of STEM studies and STEM students’ perceptions of
STEM studies. Table 5 shows the descriptive results. It presents the mean differences
(average perception minus average preconception) between perceptions and precon-
ceptions of science and technical studies per item for SCIENCE students, non-
SCIENCE students, boys, girls, and the overall difference. The average differences
vary from 0.0 to 3.3 on a 7-point Likert scale. Subsequently, we systematically
present the descriptive results for each of the 12 items and describe the results of
the multiple linear regression analyses by which we statistically tested our hypotheses.
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

We will first discuss the overall differences between preconceptions and perceptions
(column ‘Total’ of Table 5). Science studies show relatively large differences (mean
difference ≥ 2) for the items varied content, interesting, achievement and fits me, and
the technical studies for the items interesting, achievement, and fits me. In particular,
the large difference regarding the item fits me (mean difference . 3) is remarkable.
Moreover, the difference as regards the varied content of science studies reveals that
the science students’ perceptions of the content variety are more favourable than
non-STEM students’ preconceptions of this item. The STEM students’ perceptions
of science and technical studies are indeed more favourable than the non-STEM stu-
dents’ preconceptions of these studies: overall, the mean differences are positive
scores (with some small exceptions).
With respect to SCIENCE and non-SCIENCE students, our results in Table 5
indicate that the difference between perceptions and preconceptions is somewhat
smaller for SCIENCE students than for non-SCIENCE students. Although the
differences reported between SCIENCE students and non-SCIENCE students (all
≤ 2) for the items are not that large, there does appear to be a systematic difference
throughout the items.
With respect to sex, the results presented in Table 5 show that the difference
between preconceptions and perceptions of STEM studies are generally of the
same magnitude (all ≤ 1) for both sexes. For some items, the differences the
between preconceptions and perceptions of technical studies are slightly larger for
girls than for boys, but no systematic sex difference appears in the table.
To test the three hypotheses related to the comparisons of preconceptions and per-
ceptions statistically, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. In these ana-
lyses, the outcome variables were the scores on the items (e.g. difficulty level). The
predictors were three dummy variables and their interactions. The first dummy rep-
resented the measured construct, that is, whether students’ score on the item was a
perception (coded 1) or a preconception (coded 0). The second dummy represented
the study profile in which the students took their FSE (SCIENCE coded 1; non-
SCIENCE coded 0). The third dummy indicated the sex of the students (boys
coded 1; girls coded 0). To counteract the problem of multiple comparisons (we per-
formed 12 separate tests, one for each item), we used a Bonferroni correction for
 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2367

Table 6. Multiple linear regression analyses for science studies

95% confidence interval for B

B (SE) b Lower Upper

Difficulty level (R2 ¼ 0.11)

Constant 2.10 (0.03) 2.04 2.16
Construct (perception vs. preconception) 1.48 (0.18) 0.31a 1.13 1.82
Study profile (SCIENCE vs. non-SCIENCE) 0.80 (0.15) 0.16a 0.49 1.10
Sex (boys vs. girls) 0.29 (0.06) 0.11a 0.16 0.42
Interaction construct × study profile 21.04 (0.27) 20.15a 21.57 20.51
Interaction construct × sex 20.19 (0.24) 20.03 20.65 0.28

Varied content (R2 ¼ 0.12)

Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Constant 3.37 (0.04) 3.29 3.45

Construct 2.04 (0.22) 0.34a 1.60 2.48
Study profile 0.25 (0.19) 0.04 20.13 0.63
Sex 20.23 (0.08) 20.07 20.39 20.07
Interaction construct × study profile 20.20 (0.34) 20.02 20.87 0.47
Interaction construct × sex 0.07 (0.30) 0.01 20.51 0.65

Interesting (R2 ¼ 0.16)

Constant 3.05 (0.05) 2.95 3.14
Construct 2.73 (0.26) 0.38a 2.22 3.25
Study profile 1.03 (0.23) 0.14a 0.58 1.48
Sex 0.07 (0.09) 0.02 20.12 0.25
Interaction construct × study profile 21.04 (0.40) 20.10a 21.82 20.25
Interaction construct × sex 0.01 (0.35) 0.00 20.68 0.70

Theoretical courses (R2 ¼ 0.01)

Constant 5.67 (0.04) 2.60 5.74
Construct 20.30 (0.19) 20.06 20.69 0.08
Study profile 0.09 (0.17) 0.02 20.24 0.43
Sex 0.19 (0.07) 0.07 0.05 0.32
Interaction construct × study profile 20.22 (0.30) 20.03 20.80 0.36
Interaction construct × sex 20.20 (0.26) 20.03 20.71 0.30
Specialization options (R2 ¼ 0.01)
Constant 4.62 (0.04) 4.53 4.71
Construct 0.66 (0.24) 0.11 0.19 1.14
Study profile 0.09 (0.21) 0.01 20.32 0.51
Sex 0.14 (0.09) 0.04 20.04 0.31
Interaction construct × study profile 0.04 (0.37) 0.00 20.69 0.76
Interaction construct × sex 20.21 (0.32) 20.03 20.85 0.42

Options to choose (R2 ¼ 0.02)

Constant 4.08 (0.04) 4.00 4.16
Construct 0.76 (0.22) 0.14a 0.34 1.19
Study profile 0.10 (0.19) 0.02 20.27 0.47
Sex 20.08 (0.08) 20.03 20.23 0.07
Interaction construct × study profile 20.01 (0.33) 0.00 20.65 0.64
Interaction construct × sex 0.05 (0.29) 0.01 20.52 0.61

(Continued)
 2368 H. Korpershoek et al.

Table 6. Continued
95% confidence interval for B

B (SE) b Lower Upper

Achievement (R2 ¼ 0.13)

Constant 2.80 (0.04) 2.71 2.89
Construct 2.26 (0.24) 0.35a 1.79 2.73
Study profile 1.13 (0.21) 0.17a 0.72 1.53
Sex 0.35 (0.09) 0.10a 0.18 0.52
Interaction construct × study profile 20.99 (0.36) 20.11 21.71 20.28
Interaction construct × sex 20.49 (0.32) 20.06 21.12 0.13
General development (R2 ¼ 0.07)
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Constant 3.68 (0.04) 3.60 3.76

Construct 1.39 (0.22) 0.24a 0.95 1.83
Study profile 0.22 (0.19) 0.04 20.16 0.60
Sex 20.18 (0.08) 20.06 20.34 20.02
Interaction construct × study profile 20.45 (0.34) 20.05 21.11 0.21
Interaction construct × sex 0.35 (0.30) 0.05 20.23 0.93
Fits me (R2 ¼ 0.23)
Constant 2.41 (0.04) 2.32 2.49
Construct 3.23 (0.23) 0.49a 2.77 3.68
Study profile 1.12 (0.20) 0.16a 0.72 1.52
Sex 0.24 (0.08) 0.07 0.08 0.41
Interaction construct × study profile 20.97 (0.35) 20.10 21.66 20.28
Interaction construct × sex 20.45 (0.31) 20.05 21.05 0.16
Job within half a year (R2 ¼ 0.06)
Constant 4.46 (0.04) 4.38 4.54
Construct 1.30 (0.22) 0.23a 0.87 1.72
Study profile 0.28 (0.19) 0.05 20.09 0.65
Sex 0.01 (0.08) 0.00 20.14 0.17
Interaction construct × study profile 20.10 (0.33) 20.01 20.75 0.54
Interaction construct × sex 0.04 (0.29) 0.01 20.53 0.60
Job useful for society (R2 ¼ 0.06)
Constant 4.20 (0.04) 4.13 4.28
Construct 1.43 (0.21) 0.27a 1.02 1.84
Study profile 0.55 (0.18) 0.10 0.20 0.91
Sex 20.12 (0.08) 20.04 20.27 0.02
Interaction construct × study profile 21.00 (0.32) 20.13a 21.62 20.38
Interaction construct × sex 0.19 (0.28) 0.03 20.36 0.73

Different job opportunities (R2 ¼ 0.07)

Constant 4.10 (0.04) 4.03 4.18
Construct 1.24 (0.22) 0.22a 0.82 1.67
Study profile 20.01 (0.19) 20.00 20.39 0.36
Sex 20.05 (0.08) 20.02 20.21 0.10
Interaction construct × study profile 0.65 (0.33) 0.08 20.01 1.30
Interaction construct × sex 20.10 (0.29) 20.01 20.67 0.47

a
p , 0.001.
 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2369

Table 7. Multiple linear regression analyses for technical studies

95% confidence interval for B

B (SE) b Lower Upper

Difficulty level (R2 ¼ 0.23)

Constant 5.99 (0.03) 5.93 6.05
Construct (perception vs. preconception) 2.09 (0.23) 0.53a 2.53 1.65
Study profile (SCIENCE vs. non-SCIENCE) 0.68 (0.15) 0.17a 0.97 0.39
Sex (boys vs. girls) 0.63 (0.06) 0.25a 0.75 0.51
Interaction construct × study profile 20.89 (0.22) 20.19a 20.45 21.33
Interaction construct × sex 20.84 (0.24) 20.20a 20.37 21.31
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Varied content (R2 ¼ 0.07)

Constant 4.03 (0.04) 3.95 4.11
Construct 1.41 (0.30) 0.29a 0.82 1.99
Study profile 0.31 (0.20) 0.06 20.07 0.69
Sex 0.13 (0.08) 0.04 20.02 0.29
Interaction construct × study profile 20.39 (0.30) 20.07 20.98 0.19
Interaction construct × sex 20.18 (0.32) 20.04 20.80 0.44

Interesting (R2 ¼ 0.25)

Constant 2.82 (0.05) 2.73 2.90
Construct 2.77 (0.33) 0.47a 2.12 3.43
Study profile 1.03 (0.22) 0.17a 0.60 1.45
Sex 0.86 (0.09) 0.23a 0.69 1.04
Interaction construct × study profile 21.00 (0.33) 20.14 21.65 20.35
Interaction construct × sex 20.76 (0.35) 20.12 21.46 20.07

Theoretical courses (R2 ¼ 0.01)

Constant 4.68 (0.04) 4.60 4.76
Construct 20.07 (0.31) 20.02 20.67 0.52
Study profile 0.27 (0.20) 0.06 20.12 0.65
Sex 20.13 (0.08) 20.04 20.29 0.03
Interaction construct × study profile 20.01 (0.30) 20.00 20.60 0.58
Interaction construct × sex 0.38 (0.32) 0.08 20.25 1.01

Specialization options (R2 ¼ 0.01)

Constant 5.21 (0.04) 5.14 5.28
Construct 20.10 (0.26) 20.03 20.60 0.40
Study profile 20.14 (0.17) 20.03 20.47 0.19
Sex 0.26 (0.07) 0.10a 0.13 0.40
Interaction construct × study profile 0.26 (0.26) 0.05 20.24 0.76
Interaction construct × sex 20.34 (0.27) 20.08 20.87 0.20

Options to choose (R2 ¼ 0.00)

Constant 4.71 (0.03) 4.65 4.78
Construct 0.25 (0.25) 0.07 20.23 0.74
Study profile 0.23 (0.16) 0.06 20.09 0.55
Sex 0.13 (0.07) 0.05 0.00 0.26
Interaction construct × study profile 20.25 (0.25) 20.05 20.73 0.24
Interaction construct × sex 20.37 (0.26) 20.09 20.89 0.15

(Continued)
 2370 H. Korpershoek et al.

Table 7. Continued
95% confidence interval for B

B (SE) b Lower Upper

Achievement (R2 ¼ 0.28)

Constant 2.55 (0.04) 2.48 2.63
Construct 2.48 (0.29) 0.48a 1.92 3.04
Study profile 1.44 (0.19) 0.27a 1.07 1.80
Sex 0.83 (0.08) 0.25a 0.68 0.98
Interaction construct × study profile 21.51 (0.29) 20.24a 22.07 20.96
Interaction construct × sex 20.68 (0.30) 20.12 21.28 20.08
General development (R2 ¼ 0.08)
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Constant 3.83 (0.04) 3.76 3.91

Construct 1.33 (0.28) 0.30a 0.78 1.87
Study profile 0.47 (0.18) 0.10 0.12 0.83
Sex 0.18 (0.07) 0.06 0.04 0.33
Interaction construct × study profile 20.66 (0.28) 20.12 21.20 20.12
Interaction construct × sex 20.09 (0.29) 20.02 20.67 0.49
Fits me (R2 ¼ 0.41)
Constant 2.15 (0.04) 2.07 2.22
Construct 3.25 (0.28) 0.58a 2.70 3.80
Study profile 1.57 (0.18) 0.28a 1.21 1.93
Sex 0.86 (0.07) 0.24a 0.71 1.00
Interaction construct × study profile 21.66 (0.28) 20.25a 22.20 21.11
Interaction construct × sex 20.52 (0.30) 20.09 21.10 0.06

Job within half a year (R2 ¼ 0.06)

Constant 5.08 (0.03) 5.01 5.14
Construct 0.85 (0.25) 0.21a 0.36 1.35
Study profile 0.31 (0.16) 0.08 20.01 0.64
Sex 0.04 (0.07) 0.02 20.09 0.17
Interaction construct × study profile 20.24 (0.25) 20.05 20.73 0.25
Interaction construct × sex 0.01 (0.27) 0.00 20.51 0.54

Job useful for society (R2 ¼ 0.03)

Constant 4.78 (0.03) 4.71 4.85
Construct 0.53 (0.25) 0.13 0.03 1.03
Study profile 0.23 (0.17) 0.06 20.10 0.55
Sex 20.07 (0.07) 20.03 20.21 0.06
Interaction construct × study profile 20.11 (0.25) 20.03 20.61 0.38
Interaction construct × sex 0.06 (0.27) 0.01 20.47 0.59

Different job opportunities (R2 ¼ 0.04)

Constant 4.85 (0.03) 4.78 4.92
Construct 0.82 (0.25) 0.20a 0.32 1.32
Study profile 0.34 (0.17) 0.08 0.01 0.67
Sex 20.01 (0.07) 20.00 20.14 0.13
Interaction construct × study profile 20.49 (0.25) 20.10 20.98 0.01
Interaction construct × sex 0.08 (0.27) 0.02 20.45 0.60

a
p , 0.001.
 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2371

establishing the alpha level to identify significant effects (one-tailed). Hence, an alpha
level of 0.004 is used in the analyses (0.05/12 items). The main effects of the construct
indicated whether the non-STEM students’ preconceptions of STEM studies were
less favourable than the STEM students’ perceptions of STEM studies (Hypothesis
1). Interaction-effects of construct × study profile showed whether the differences
between preconceptions and perceptions of STEM studies differed between the
non-SCIENCE students and the SCIENCE students (Hypothesis 2), while inter-
action-effects of construct × sex indicated whether the differences between precon-
ceptions and perceptions of STEM studies differed between the sexes (Hypothesis 3).
The 24 regression analyses showed the following outcomes (see Table 6 for science
studies and Table 7 for technical studies). The explained variance (R2) varied from
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

,1% to 41%. With respect to the science studies, more than 10% explained variance
was found for the items difficulty level (11%), varied content (12%), interesting (16%),
achievement (13%), and fits me (23%). As regards the technical studies, more than
10% variance was explained for the items difficulty level (23%), interesting (25%),
achievement (28%), and fits me (41%). We found significant main construct effects
for 10 out of the 12 items for the science studies and for 8 out of the 12 items for
the technical studies. For both studies, unique main construct effects (that do not
also appear in significant interaction-effects) were found for the items varied
content, interesting, general development, job within half a year, different job opportunities,
for science studies also for the items achievement, options to choose, and fits me, and
for technical studies also for the item interesting. In all cases, the STEM students’ per-
ceptions of science studies were more favourable than the preconceptions of non-
STEM students, which support Hypothesis 1.
In addition, we found some main effects of study profile and of sex. Unique main
effects of study profile were significant for the items achievement and fits me (science
studies) and for the item interesting (technical studies). For these items, the
SCIENCE students’ scores were higher than those of the non-SCIENCE students,
indicating that the SCIENCE students’ attitudes towards STEM (both perceptions
and preconceptions) were more favourable than those of the non-SCIENCE students.
The unique main effects of sex were significant for the item achievement for both the
science and the technical studies; for the item difficulty level for only the science
studies; and for the items interesting, specialization options, and fits me for only the tech-
nical studies. For these items, the boys’ scores were higher than the girls’ scores, indi-
cating that boys’ attitudes towards STEM (both perceptions and preconceptions)
were more favourable than girls’ attitudes towards STEM.
In addition to several main effects, we found three interaction-effects of construct
× study profile for the science studies, namely, for the items difficulty level, interesting,
and job useful for society. For the technical studies, interaction-effects of construct ×
study profile were identified for the items difficulty level, achievement, and fits me.
For these items, we observed that among the STEM students, non-SCIENCE stu-
dents’ perceptions of their current science or technical study were more favourable
than those of SCIENCE students, whereas among the non-STEM students, non-
SCIENCE students’ preconceptions of science or technical studies were less
 2372 H. Korpershoek et al.

favourable than those of SCIENCE students with respect to these studies. That is, the
effect of the measured construct on the score on the items varied with the study profile
chosen by the student (i.e. SCIENCE or non-SCIENCE). Although these results are
in line with our suppositions (Hypothesis 2), only 6 of the 24 interaction-effects of
construct × study profile were found. In addition, we observed one significant inter-
action-effect of construct × sex, namely, for the item difficulty level of the technical
studies. We found that among STEM students, the girls’ perceptions of the difficulty
level of their technical study were more favourable than those of the boys, whereas
among non-STEM students, the girls’ preconceptions of the difficulty level of technical
studies were less favourable than the boys’ preconceptions of these studies. This result
implies that except for the item difficulty level of technical studies, we have to reject
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Hypothesis 3.

Conclusions and Discussion

The aim of the present study has been to assess whether non-STEM students’ precon-
ceptions of science-oriented studies in higher education correspond with STEM stu-
dents’ experiences or, more specifically, with the perceptions of students who actually
enrolled in these studies. For adequate counselling purposes, it is important to know
the preconceptions of (sufficiently capable) students with respect to science-oriented
studies and establish whether they are irrational. To this end, we compared non-
STEM students’ preconceptions of STEM studies with STEM students’ perceptions
of STEM studies. Additionally, differences between suitably qualified students (i.e.
SCIENCE students) and less qualified students (non-SCIENCE students) were
examined as well as sex differences.
In line with our assumption that students generally select the best suitable option
when choosing a study (see Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), science studies and technical
studies were perceived more favourably by STEM students than preconceived by
non-STEM students (Hypothesis 1) in the present study. Students generally opted
for the ‘best fitting’ option when choosing a study. An important result is that non-
STEM students’ expectations with respect to the content variety of science studies
were less favourable than the perception of this item by students who actually opted
for a science study (see also Fuller, 1991). In addition, our results partly support
the second hypothesis, indicating that among STEM students, non-SCIENCE stu-
dents’ perceptions of their current science or technical study were more favourable
than those of SCIENCE students, whereas among non-STEM students, the non-
SCIENCE students’ preconceptions of science or technical studies were less favour-
able than those of SCIENCE students with respect to these studies. SCIENCE stu-
dents’ experience with maths- and science-related topics in secondary education
might have had a positive influence on their attitudes towards STEM studies, decreas-
ing the differences between expectations and experiences. Non-SCIENCE students
who chose a science or technical study in higher education might have changed
their preconceptions during secondary education, for example, as a result of
changed future perspectives.
 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2373

We had to reject Hypothesis 3 because we only found one significant interaction-

effect of construct × sex on the students’ item scores. The invalidness of this result
indicates that the differences between preconceptions and perceptions of STEM
studies are practically the same between the sexes in our sample. These differences
may have been slightly larger for girls than for boys for some items, but no systematic
sex difference appeared in the regression analyses. Only for the difficulty level item
did we find that among the STEM students the girls’ perceptions of the difficulty
level of their current technical study were more favourable than those of the boys,
whereas among the non-STEM students, the girls’ preconceptions of the difficulty
level of technical studies were less favourable than those of the boys. Lightbody and
Siann (1997) suggest that although women tend to avoid STEM studies, this is not a
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

negative choice. Women generally prefer courses which prepare them for more
social-oriented careers (see also Lips, 1992). This might explain why the differences
we found between preconceptions and perceptions were, in general, not larger for
girls than for boys.
This study addressed important issues for educational practice. Since systematic
differences between preconceptions and perceptions exist, our results can be used
by counsellors to improve their guidance and advice accordingly. In other words,
the present study provides essential knowledge about those topics that need further
attention in career guidance, for example, the content of science studies and the dif-
ficulty level of STEM studies in general. Packard and Nguyen (2003) report that girls
who participated in intensive maths and science programmes during secondary edu-
cation indicated that mentoring and career-related internships helped them think
about the suitability of a science-oriented career. Several initiatives are developed in
the Netherlands; for example, female role models are invited to the schools to talk
with the students about their daily work. We also believe that students’ expectations
of whether STEM studies would fit them needs further attention in STEM cam-
paigns. With respect to the issue of making educational choices, scholars should con-
sider the consequences of the fit between students (e.g. suitably qualified girls) and
the environment (e.g. STEM studies) (e.g. Holland, 1997). The differences we
observed between SCIENCE and non-SCIENCE students highlight the effect of
early selection in secondary education. More experience with maths- and science-
related topics could result in more favourable attitudes towards STEM and, conse-
quently, in an increased STEM entry. Once students have chosen a non-SCIENCE
study profile at the end of the ninth grade, they are no longer eligible for STEM
studies, at least not without supplementary entry exams.
There are a number of limitations to consider when interpreting and generalizing
the present findings. Generalization of the present data is restricted because girls
are largely overrepresented in the sample (65%). However, the percentages of stu-
dents enrolled in science studies and technical studies in our sample are similar to
those in the Dutch student population in higher education, although our sample rep-
resents only 32% of all respondents approached. With respect to students’ study
profile choice, it is representative of the Dutch student population, that is, 30% of
all the boys and 3% of all the girls took their FSE in the SCIENCE study profile. A
 2374 H. Korpershoek et al.

second limitation is that we had no information on STEM students’ preconceptions of

STEM studies during the time they attended secondary education. A longitudinal
study in this field would strengthen our results, because then we could analyse how
students’ attitudes evolve over time before they eventually result in a final study
choice (STEM or non-STEM). Thirdly, we propose a more qualitative approach to
unravel the preconceptions of SCIENCE girls in more detail. Notwithstanding
their relatively favourable attitudes towards STEM studies, they did not pursue a
science-oriented career when entering higher education. In future research, the
origin of this sex effect should be investigated as well as its development from
primary education onwards. In-depth interviews could, for example, bring to light
why some students reported that science-oriented studies would not fit them.
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Despite these limitations, the current study presents a unique comparison between
students’ preconceptions and perceived reality. We found both small and large differ-
ences between the preconceptions and perceptions of science-oriented studies. This
study contributes to the research literature on students’ attitudes towards STEM
studies in higher education, building on the already existing knowledge about stu-
dents’ attitudes towards mathematics and science in secondary education. It adds
useful insights in view of the growing interest of researchers on the impact of early
selection in secondary education (i.e. in our case the study profile choice), as early
selection has a large impact on STEM entry.

Notes
1. See the method section for more information regarding the study profiles.
2. All students take part in the FSE at the end of secondary education. These national examinations
are designed by specialists at the Dutch National Institute for Educational Testing (Cito).
3. Although it would be interesting to investigate the three-way/interaction-effect of the construct
(stereotype preconception or perception) × study profile × sex, this has not been included in
the present study because the sample sizes for some of the cells were too small for this
purpose (e.g. there are only 10 SCIENCE girls who pursue a science study).
4. As the items were intended to measure different aspects of students’ preconceptions of STEM
studies, they were not combined into subscales.

References
Ajzen, I., & Cote, N.G. (2008). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In W.D. Crano & R. Prislin
(Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 289 –312). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood-
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
De Grip, A., & Willems, E. (2003). Youngsters and technology. Research Policy, 32, 1771–1781.
Eccles, J.S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices.
In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Elsworth, G.R., Harvey-Beavis, A., Ainley, J., & Fabris, S. (1999). Generic interests and school
subject choice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5, 290 –318.
 Preconceptions of STEM Studies 2375

European Commission (2002). European benchmarks in education and training: Follow up to the Lisbon
European Council. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2004). Progress towards the common objectives in education and training. Indi-
cators and benchmarks. Brussels: European Commission.
Frost, L.A., Hyde, J.S., & Fennema, E. (1994). Gender, mathematics performance, and mathemat-
ics-related attitudes and affect: A meta-analytic synthesis. International Journal of Educational
Research, 21, 373– 385.
Fuller, A. (1991). There’s more to science and skills shortages than demography and economics:
Attitudes. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 333 –342.
Gottfredson, L.S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupation
aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545– 579.
Holland, J.L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environ-
ments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Downloaded by [University of Groningen] at 01:18 09 September 2013

Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career
and academic interest, choice and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79– 122.
Lightbody, P., & Durndell, A. (1996). Gendered career choice: Is sex-stereotyping the cause or the
consequence? Educational Studies, 22, 133– 146.
Lightbody, P., & Siann, G. (1997). A fulfilling career? Factors which influence women’s choice of
profession. Educational Studies, 23, 25–37.
Lips, H.M. (1992). Gender and science related attitudes as predictors of college students’ academic
choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 62–81.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954 –969.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. (2004). Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoek Plan 2004
[Higher Education and Research Plan 2004]. Den Haag: Ministry of Education, Culture
and Science.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009). Top of the class – high performers
in science in PISA 2006. Paris: Author.
Packard, B.W., & Nguyen, D. (2003). Science career-related possible selves of adolescent girls: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Career Development, 29, 251 –263.
Parkinson, J., Hendley, D., & Tanner, H. (1998). Pupils’ attitudes to science in key stage 3 of the
national curriculum: A study of pupils in South Wales. Research in Science & Technological Edu-
cation, 16, 165 –176.
Rekers-Mombarg, L.T.M., Korpershoek, H., Kuyper, H., & van der Werf, M.P.C. (2010). Van stu-
diehuis naar studentenhuis, de studeer-, werk- en persoonlijke situatie van havo- en vwo-eindexamen
leerlingen [From ‘studiehuis’ to student home, the study, work, and personal issues of ‘havo’ and
‘vwo’ graduates]. Groningen: GION.
Second Phase Advisory Point. (2005). Zeven jaar tweede fase, een balans; evaluatie tweede fase [Seven
years second phase, an audit; evaluation second phase]. Den Haag: Tweede Fase Adviespunt.
Statistics Netherlands (2010). Statline. Voorburg: CBS.
Trusty, J., & Robinson, C.R. (2000). Effects of gender, socioeconomic status, and early academic
performance on postsecondary educational choice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78,
463– 472.
Van Langen, A., & Dekkers, H. (2005). Cross-national differences in participating in tertiary
science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Comparative Education, 41,
329– 350.
Verhorst, J., & Verhulst, C.T.A.M. (1993). De keuze voor een bèta-studie; onderzoek naar het keuze-
proces van vwo-bèta-leerlingen voor het vervolg op de vwo-opleiding [Choosing a science-oriented
study; research into pre-university science students’ choice processes]. Utrecht: STOGO.
Warps, J. (2001). Kiezen voor bèta in het wetenschappelijk onderwijs; een onderzoek naar de keuze voor
zachte- en harde bètaopleidingen door vwo-wo doorstromers [Choosing science at university; research
into pre-university students’ choice of soft and hard science-oriented studies]. Nijmegen: IOWO.

View publication stats