​​Profiles of Math and Science Motivation Among Marginalized Students and Relation to STEM Outcomes

• In Event: Perceptions of the Self, Social Identities, and STEM Fields: Influences on STEM Motivation and Participation

Abstract

Purpose

The current study took a person-centered approach to explore 1) gender differences in
math and science motivation and 2) the longitudinal relations between motivation profile
membership and STEM ACT scores.

Theoretical Perspective

The current study uses Situated Expectancy-value Theory (SEVT) as the theoretical
framework. SEVT holds that students are motivated to achieve in academic areas they value
(subjective task values) and in which they expect to succeed (expectancies of success) (Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Some existing work questions the applicability of SEVT to marginalized students (Snodgrass Rangel et al., 2020). For instance, while SEVT proposes a positive relation between expectancies of success and achievement, some research found a negative or null relation between the two among Black students (Kotok, 2017; Seo et al., 2018). Thus, more research is needed.

Methods

The current study included participants when the majority of participants were in 10th grade (predictors) and 12th grade (ACT scores, a requirement of their graduation). The sample (n= 321, 59% female) was 80% Black. Most of the students were from economically
disadvantaged homes.

Motivation was measured using items from three subscales for both math and science:
expectancies of success, interest, and utility value (Martin et al., 2012; Mullis et al., 2012).
Mathematics achievement in 9th grade was measured using the KeyMath Assessment and the
Quantitative Concepts subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson (Woodcock et al., 2001).

Our outcome was students’ rounded average on the ACT mathematics and science
sections.

Results

Latent Profile Models with one to eight clusters or profiles were estimated using the 6
motivational measures. We selected the model with seven profiles on the basis of interpretability.
The seven profiles were convergent: low math/science motivation (13% of
sample); high math/science (14%); and divergent: low math/medium science (24%); low math
utility/low science (10%); low math/high science (12%); high math/low science (20%); and very
high math/high science motivation (7%).
Gender significantly affected the profile prevalences (LR (df = 6) = 27.92; p < .001).
Specifically, boys were more likely to be in the high math/high science profile than girls, z =
2.52, p = .01. There were no reliable gender differences for the other profiles.
Multiple linear regression was conducted, controlling for parent income, parent
education, and race (Black or not). The outcome variable was students’ average on the ACT
mathematics and science sections (STEM ACT). Profile membership did not predict STEM ACT
scores, p > .05.

Significance

The majority of students did not have similar levels of math and science motivation,
suggesting we cannot look at math and science motivation in isolation. While we found gender
differences in profile membership in line with SEVT, we did not find that profile membership
predicted STEM ACT scores after controlling for prior achievement and SES. Thus, our work
adds to literature questioning the applicability of SEVT (in its current state) to marginalized students. More work is needed to understand if and how we can use motivation to improve
academic achievement of marginalized students.

Authors

• Rebecca Adler, Vanderbilt University
  Presenting Author

• Bethany Rittle-Johnson, Vanderbilt University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Marian Hickendorff
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kelley Durkin, Vanderbilt University
  Non-Presenting Author