MMiinnnneessoottaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy,, MMaannkkaattoo CCoorrnneerrssttoonnee:: AA CCoolllleeccttiioonn ooff SScchhoollaarrllyy aanndd CCrreeaattiivvee WWoorrkkss ffoorr MMiinnnneessoottaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy,, MMaannkkaattoo All Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Other Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects Capstone Projects 2017 WWoommeenn’’ss CChhooiiccee iinn CCoolllleeggee SSTTEEMM MMaajjoorrss:: IImmppaacctt ooff AAbbiilliittyy TTiilltt oonn WWoommeenn SSttuuddeennttss’’ EEdduuccaattiioonnaall CChhooiiccee Audie Jane Willis Minnesota State University, Mankato Follow this and additional works at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds Part of the Counseling Psychology Commons, Higher Education Commons, and the Other Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Willis, A. J. (2017). Women’s Choice in College STEM Majors: Impact of Ability Tilt on Women Students’ Educational Choice [Doctoral dissertation, Minnesota State University, Mankato]. Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds/700/ This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects at Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. Women’s Choice in College STEM Majors: Impact of Ability Tilt on Women Students’ Educational Choice by Audie Jane Willis A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education In Counselor Education and Supervision Minnesota State University, Mankato Mankato, Minnesota May 2017 i May 2, 2017 Women’s Choice in College STEM Majors: Impact of Ability Tilt on Women Students’ Educational Choice Audie Jane Willis This dissertation has been examined and approved by the following members of the student’s committee. Dr. Diane Coursol ___________________________________ Advisor Dr. Jacqueline Lewis ________________________________ Committee Member Dr. Karin Lindstrom Bremer ________________________________ Committee Member Dr. John Seymour __________________________________ Committee Member ii Acknowledgements There have been many people who have encouraged and supported me during this doctoral and dissertation process. Throughout this process people have passed out of my life, but new people have entered. For my parents, Annie and George Willis (now deceased), thank you for valuing education. You made it possible for me to pursue lifelong learning. My daughter, Nicole Willis-Grimes who supported and encouraged me to go back to school in my late 50s. Even when I was ready to quit, Nicole would say, “Mother, you’ve put too much work into this to quit now; you can do this.” Also, thank you Nicole for editing and helping me with some of the formatting. I could not have accomplished this without you. A special thanks to the Counseling and Student Personnel Department, who encouraged, supported and gave opportunities to an older student. I would also like to thank my advisor Dr. Diane Coursol, who would calm and reassure me when I became so agitated. Thank you to my wonderful committee members, Dr. Jacqueline Lewis, Dr. John Seymour, and Dr. Karin Lindstrom-Bremer, without your support I could not have completed this. A very special acknowledgement to my wonderful twin grandsons, Samuel Grimes Wadhams and Robert Willis Wadhams, born during the iii process of this dissertation. Both of the boys are somewhat astounded that I am still in school, “You’re still in school, Amma? But you’re so old!” Thanks to friends: Kathy, Kathleen, Kerry, Leigh, Nanette, and Anne who were willing to have a glass of wine with me and allow me to vent. The old Oklahoma cowboy who said, “Audie, you’re gonna feel a whole lot better when you see that book you’re writing, in your rear-view mirror;” he was right. iv Women’s Choice in College STEM Majors: Impact of Ability Tilt on Women Students’ Educational Choice Audie Jane Willis Dr. Diane Coursol, Dissertation Advisor ABSTRACT This quantitative study explored the impact of ability and ability tilt on the choice of an academic program in STEM majors for female college students who have not been identified as profoundly or highly gifted. A math tilt would be an ability tilt slanting toward math. The career development theory that provided a framework for this study was the Theory of Work Adjustment. Three bodies of literature were reviewed, (a) Self-efficacy as a variable in college major or career choice, (b) life-style preference, and (c) ability tilt and ability. A Chi Square Test of Independence determined that significantly more women who majored in inorganic science, math or engineering exhibited a math tilt than would be expected. By using a logistic regression, it was found that women who possessed a math tilt were more likely to choose an inorganic science, math or engineering major. There are limitations to this study, but results suggested that further study into the concept of an ability tilt driving the choice of a major for women college students should be further explored. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................... 2 Rationale for STEM Imbalance between Males and Females ....................... 5 Self-Efficacy Theory ............................................................................................. 5 Lifestyle Preference ............................................................................................. 8 Ability Tilt and Ability ......................................................................................... 10 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 12 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................... 13 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 14 Research Questions .......................................................................................... 16 Research hypothesis for question two. ........................................................... 17 Research hypothesis for question three. ........................................................ 17 Summary ............................................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................... 20 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................................... 20 Rationale for STEM Imbalance between Men and Women ........................ 23 Self-efficacy ....................................................................................................... 23 Lifestyle Preference ........................................................................................... 38 Ability Tilt ............................................................................................................. 45 Summary ............................................................................................................ 66 CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................. 68 Restatement of the Purpose ............................................................................ 68 Participants ........................................................................................................ 70 Measures ............................................................................................................ 71 Reliability and Validity for the ACT .................................................................. 72 Research Design and Data Analysis ............................................................... 74 Variables ............................................................................................................ 75 Data Analyses.................................................................................................... 75 Research Question One ................................................................................... 76 Research Question Two .................................................................................... 76 vi Research Question Three ................................................................................. 77 Summary ............................................................................................................ 77 CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................. 78 Data Collection and Cleaning ........................................................................ 78 Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................... 79 Research Question One ................................................................................... 81 Research question Two .................................................................................... 82 Research Question Three ................................................................................. 83 Descriptive Statistics for the Random Sample Sub-group ............................ 85 Chapter Five ...................................................................................................... 88 Overview of the Study ...................................................................................... 88 Discussion of Results .......................................................................................... 90 Research Question One ................................................................................... 90 Research question two ..................................................................................... 92 Research question three .................................................................................. 92 Limitations of Study ........................................................................................... 93 Recommendations for Further Research ....................................................... 94 Recommendations for Further Practice ......................................................... 95 References ....................................................................................................... 101 vii Women’s Choice in College STEM Major: Impact of Ability Tilt on Women Students’ Educational Choice CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background The Civil Rights Act of 1964 enabled women to pursue occupations that had been denied to them because of discrimination based on sex. Since the 1960s career development researchers have focused on the career needs of women, helping women to realize their career potential (Farmer, 1997). Despite this focus, in 1997, only 5.7% of all women in the workforce were employed in occupations considered nontraditional for females (AFSCME, 2002). The U.S. Department of Labor considers a nontraditional occupation to be one in which females make up 25% or less of the total work force (AFSCME, 2002). Examples of nontraditional occupations include, but are not limited to: construction managers, engineering managers, computer software engineers, computer programmers, mechanical engineers, aerospace engineers, fire fighters, logging workers, carpenters, mining machine operators, and civil engineers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Traditional female careers are thought of as those in which women make up 95% or more of the work force (Chatterjee & McCarrey, 1989). However, other research has suggested that traditional occupations are 1 those where women make up 85% or more of the work force (Whiston, 1993). Examples of traditional occupations for women include, but are not limited to: preschool and kindergarten teachers, speech-language pathologists, dental hygienists, dental assistants, childcare workers, secretaries, and administrative assistants (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). The National Employment for Women Act mandated that states develop goals for the training and placement of women in nontraditional jobs (U.S. Department of Labor, 2004). This focus was partially based on advantages of working in characteristically nontraditional jobs. Two significant advantages of work in nontraditional jobs for women include better benefits and better pay. Data compiled in 2002 indicated that salaries for nontraditional occupations were reported to be 20% to 30% more than for traditional female jobs (AFSCME, 2008). Occupations in the trades and technical fields also often offer better health benefits and sick leave time than traditionally female occupations (AFSCME, 2008). For the past 20 years, nontraditional careers have been more open to women; however, men and women have continued to enter jobs and educational programs based on perceived sex appropriateness (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Eccles, 1994; Evetts, 1993; Gottfredson, 1981; Whiston, 1993). Thus, women have continued to not only be under represented in many occupations, particularly careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), but they also have continued to be over represented in 2