Participation in Research Apprenticeship Program: Issues Related to Career Choice in STEM

  • Irit SassonEmail author


Research apprenticeship experiences provide a uniquely authentic context for deepening participants’ understanding of the nature of science and encouraging them to choose STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) studies and careers. This study evaluated a STEM program for high school students who engaged in science research with the mentoring support of academic and industrial experts. The goals were to explore how graduates perceived the program as a factor affecting their choice to specialize in a STEM career and whether the findings demonstrate gender differences. Using the sequential mixed method, 24 students were interviewed, and then, the findings were used to develop a questionnaire to which 116 program graduates responded. The responses revealed four main themes of contribution: development in science learning, development of self-efficacy, effect on students’ choice of specializing in science and technology in the future, and sense of belonging to the residential area. The results indicate a positive correlation between the attitudes of students participating in the program and their expectation to pursue a STEM-related career. Statistically significant differences were found between the attitudes of the young men and women. The study provides a deeper understanding of the gender gaps in science education.


Gender differences Research apprenticeship program Self-efficacy STEM career 


  1. Abraham, L. M. (2002). What do high school science students gain from field-based research apprenticeship programs? The Clearing House, 75, 229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B., Ginns, I. S., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activities. Science Education, 84, 658–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkins, M. J. (1993). Theories of learning and multimedia applications: An overview. Research Papers in Education, 8, 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, S. (1992). How schools shortchange girls: the AAUW report. New York, NY: Marlowe & Company.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 70–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2010). Quantifying the gender gap in science interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 523–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barro, J. R. (2001). Human capital: growth, history, and policy. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bencze, J. L., & Bowen, G. M. (2009). Student-teachers’ dialectically developed motivation for promoting student-led science projects. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouchey, H. A., & Harter, S. (2005). Reflected appraisals, academic self-perceptions, and math/science performance during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 673–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bozdoğan, A. E., & Yalçın, N. (2009). Determining the influence of a science exhibition center training program on elementary pupils’ interest and achievement in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(1), 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burgin, S. R., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Learning nature of science concepts through a research apprenticeship program: A comparative study of three approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(1), 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgin, S. R., Sadler, T. D., & Koroly, M. J. (2012). High school student participation in scientific research apprenticeships: Variation in and relationships among student experiences and outcomes. Research in Science Education, 42, 432–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cabello, R., Sorrel, M. A., Fernández-Pinto, I., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). Age and gender differences in ability emotional intelligence in adults: A cross-sectional study. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1486–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cameron, C. (2001). Promise or problem? A review of the literature on men working in early childhood services. Gender, Work and Organisation, 8, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell, A. M. (2002). The influences and factors of an undergraduate research program in preparing women for science careers (Unpublished dissertation). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.Google Scholar
  17. Cavallo, A. M. L., & Laubach, T. (2001). Students’ science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1029–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, MI: LEA.Google Scholar
  19. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
  20. Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., & Bitgood, S. (1994). Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums and community-based projects. Hillsdale, MI: Science Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 63–79.Google Scholar
  22. Das, R. P., & Sahu, T. L. (2015). Relationship between emotional intelligence and gender difference: An empirical study. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 8(9), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dori, Y. J. & Sasson, I. (2013). A three-attribute transfer skills framework – Part I: Establishing the model and its relation to chemical education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice – CERP, 14, 363–375.Google Scholar
  25. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.Google Scholar
  27. Falk, J. H., Scott, C., Dierking, L. D., Rennie, L. J., & Cohen, J. M. (2004). Interactives and visitor learning. Curator, 47, 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feldman, A., Divoll, K. A., & Rogan-Klyve, A. (2013). Becoming researchers: The participation of undergraduate and graduate students in scientific research groups. Science Education, 97, 218–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Furnham, A., Reeves, E., & Budhani, S. (2002). Parents think their sons are brighter than their daughters: Sex differences in parental self-estimations and estimations of their children’s multiple intelligences. Journal of General Psychology, 163, 24–39.Google Scholar
  30. Glaserfeld, V. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflecting (pp. 12–29). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Gonzalez-Espada, W. J., & LaDue, D. S. (2006). Evaluation of the impact of the NWC REU program compared with other undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54, 541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanushek, E., & Kimko, D. D. (2000). Schooling labor-force quality and the growth of nations. The American Economic Review, 90, 1208–1184.Google Scholar
  33. Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 870–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12, 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal and professional development. Science Education, 91, 36–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2002). Effect of the challenger experience on elementary children’s attitudes to science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 979–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2005). Factors influencing elementary school children’s attitudes toward science before, during, and after a visit to the UK National Space Centre. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 53–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turne, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones, J., & Young, D. J. (1995). Perceptions of the relevance of mathematics and science: An Australian study. Research in Science Education, 25, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kane, J., & Mertz, J. (2012). Debunking the myth: Sex differences in math performance. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 59, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly, A. (Ed.). (1987). Science for girls? Milton Keynes, England and Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kiefer, A., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes, gender identification, and math-related outcomes: A prospective study of female college students. Psychological Science, 18, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological (pp. 17–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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(1), 79–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Education Research, 41, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Linn, M. C. (1980a). Free choice experiences: How do they help children learn? Science Education, 64, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Linn, M. C. (1980b). When do adolescents reason? European Journal of Science Education, 2, 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Linn, M. C., & Pulos, S. (1983). Male-female differences in predicting displaced volume: Strategy usage, aptitude relationships and experience influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31, 313–327.Google Scholar
  55. Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74, 118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Coursework selection: Relations to academic self-concept and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 691–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marshall, C. S., & Reihartz, J. (1997). Gender issues in the classroom. Clearinghouse, 70(6), 333–338.Google Scholar
  58. Martin, A. J. (2001). The student motivation scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  60. Mayer, R. E., & Whitrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 47–62). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  61. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London, England: King’s College.Google Scholar
  62. Nagowah, L., & Nagowah, S. (2009). A reflection on the dominant learning theories: Behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. The International Journal of Learning, 16, 279–286.Google Scholar
  63. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  64. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  65. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., . . . Kesebir, S. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10593–10597.Google Scholar
  66. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pedretti, E. (2002). T. Kuhn Meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and new directions in science centers and science museums. Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Peeters, J. (2008). The construction of a new profession. A European perspective on professionalism in ECEC. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SWP.Google Scholar
  69. Price, S., & Hein, G. E. (1991). More than a field trip: Science programs for elementary school groups at museums. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rennie, L. J., & McLafferty, T. P. (1995). Using visits to interactive science and technology centers, museums, aquariua, and zoos to promote learning in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban system reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 669–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2006). Understanding teacher responses to constructivist learning environments: Challenges and resolutions. Science Education, 90, 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 235–256.Google Scholar
  75. Sasson, I. (2014). The role of informal science centers in science education: attitudes, skills, and self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 4(3), 167–180.Google Scholar
  76. Sasson, I. & Cohen, D. (2013). Assessment for effective intervention: Enrichment science academic program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 718–728.Google Scholar
  77. Sasson, I. & Dori, Y. (2006). Fostering near and far transfer in the chemistry case-based laboratory environment. In G. Clarebout & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: Advance in studying and designing powerful (computer-based) learning environments (pp. 275–286). Rotterdam: Sense Publication.Google Scholar
  78. Sasson, I. & Dori, Y. (2011). Transfer skills and their case-based assessment. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), The second international handbook of science education (pp. 691–710). Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  79. Sasson, I. & Dori, Y. (2015). A three-attribute transfer skills framework – Part II: Applying and assessing the model in science education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice – CERP, 16, 154–167.Google Scholar
  80. Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Deantoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three year study. Science Education, 88, 493–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Simon, S., Johnson, S., Cavellt, S., & Parsons, T. (2011). Promoting argumentation in primary science contexts: An analysis of students’ interactions in formal and informal learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 440–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Staff, J., Messersmith, E. E., & Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescents in the world of work. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 270–313). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  84. Toh, K. A., & Goh, N. K. (2003). Reform in science and technology curricula. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 1243–1256). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Trumper, R. (2006). Factors affecting junior high school students’ interest in physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Warin, J., & Gannerud, E. (2014). Gender, teaching and care: A comparative global conversation. Gender and Education, 26, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). The “boy turn” in research on gender and education. Review of Educational Research, 73, 471–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yair, G. (2003). Decisive moments and key experiences: Expanding paradigmatic boundaries in the study of school effects. In C. A. Torres & A. Antikainen (Eds.), The international handbook on the sociology of education: An international assessment of new research and theory (pp. 124–142). Lanham, MD: Rowman.Google Scholar
  89. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel-Hai CollegeQiryat ShemonaIsrael
  2. 2.Shamir Research InstituteKatzrinIsrael
  3. 3.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations