Evaluates conceptions of STEM careers in elementary students, highlighting gaps in engineering awareness.
Background Conceptions regarding science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers are essential for students’ career choices. However, there is a lack of evaluation studies and instruments regarding how students understand the nature of STEM careers.Purpose This study has two goals: 1) To evaluate elementary students’ conceptions of scientists, engineers, and technologists as STEM careers using the newly developed and validated Draw-STEM-Professionals-at-Work rubric; and 2) To explore whether students’ conceptions of STEM careers differ according to gender and in relation to extensive STEM experiences.Sample 257 fourth-grade students participated in the survey investigation.Design and methods Each participant completed three drawings and written descriptions regarding scientists, engineers, and technologists respectively. Multiple coders were involved in the evaluation process and established the trustworthiness of the newly developed Draw-STEM-Professionals-at-Work rubric. Subsequently, analysis of variance and multivariate analysis of variance were performed to examine group differences.Results Results highlighted students’ relatively lower levels of conceptions of engineers and technologists, compared to scientists and poorer awareness of how engineering or science can be used in STEM careers, compared to how mathematics and technology can be applied. Moreover, STEM fair participants had more advanced levels of conceptions of engineers compared to non-participants.Conclusion The developed rubric is reliable and valid, which can be used for future studies involving students’ conceptions of STEM careers. The results of the study emphasize the need to modify and enhance students’ conceptions of engineers and how engineering and science can be applied in STEM professionals’ work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: