Investigation of STEM Subject and Career Aspirations of Lower Secondary School Students in the North Calotte Region of Finland, Norway, and Russia
, Mona Kvivesen 2,*, Saeed Manshadi 2, Stig Uteng 2, Yulia Shestova 3, Oleg Lyash 3, Irina Lazareva 3 and Asya Lyash 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting study to test various aspects of social cognitive career theory with respect to STEM fields across the North Calotte region.
There is little motivation as to why there might be differences across the various countries. This should be addressed in the introduction and touched on again in the discussion.
The theoretical framework of SCCT should be expanded and developed more fully.
Page 2, line 76-80: you talk about how different secondary systems link to professional expectations and go on to state that healthcare has lower expectations compared to computing and engineering. It is unclear what characteristics in different systems lead to these different expectations and whether this is general finding or whether it depends on the type of system.
Page 2, line 97: Indonesian students were more motivated to pursue any career, or a career in STEM?
Page 4, line 169-170: It appears item 9 is associated with two different dimensions. Is this correct, or was this simply a typo. If item 9 is associated with two different dimensions, this is pretty problematic.
Page 6, line 203: It appears the overall interest in STEM is less than 300 in Norway. Would this qualify in the medium level?
In the discussion of the CFA, you mentioned that you needed to remove geography to fit the six SCCT dimensions. However, you report results for Geography in your country comparison tables. Is there any concern that these results are inaccurate given your discussion related to the CFA? Further, is it problematic to include in the FA a dimension that has only 1 item?
Why are not all STEM subscales included in exploring gender differences?
It seems you could test whether your hypothesis using SCCT as a guide could be statistically tested using this data. Since you present the idea that “self-efficacy affects outcome expectations and together they in-285 fluence on interests. Students are likely to develop interest, choose to pursue subjects of interest, and as a result, perform better at activities in subjects in which they have a stronger self-efficacy,” it would be helpful to determine whether these dimensions of SCCT are at least correlated. You could do this uniquely for each STEM subscale, or simply for STEM as a whole, but it would add a great deal to your overall argument, especially since you have the data to do so.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to thank you for your kind and thorough feedback on our paper. We have accommodated all comments in revising the manuscript. Below, we refer to your recommendations for modifications and locate where this is done by “Track function” and line numbers.
“Must be improved:
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?”
We have gone through our theory and made some changes. We have expanded the theoretical framework and explained the theoretical constructs more thoroughly.
“Can be improved:
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?”
We have clarified the background of the study and the research problem.
“Must be improved:
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?”
We have modified the manuscript, and you can see our answers to your comments.
“Can be improved:
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?”
We have modified the manuscript, and you can see our answers to your comments.
“Must be improved:
Is the article adequately referenced?”
We have added two more references, [29], [30].
“There is little motivation as to why there might be differences across the various countries. This should be addressed in the introduction and touched on again in the discussion.”
We know that the three countries have different social conditions, school systems and cultural differences. However, investigating the reasons for why they are different in the mentioned aspects is not the purpose of this study.
“The theoretical framework of SCCT should be expanded and developed more fully.”
We have expanded the theoretical framework and explained the theoretical constructs more thoroughly. Please see lines 139-172.
“Page 2, line 76-80: you talk about how different secondary systems link to professional expectations and go on to state that healthcare has lower expectations compared to computing and engineering. It is unclear what characteristics in different systems lead to these different expectations and whether this is general finding or whether it depends on the type of system”
Here we have modified the text, and clarified the characteristics in the different system that lead to these different expectation. Please see lines 76-82.
“Page 2, line 97: Indonesian students were more motivated to pursue any career, or a career in STEM?”
This has been clarified at line 112-113.
“Page 4, line 169-170: It appears item 9 is associated with two different dimensions. Is this correct, or was this simply a typo. If item 9 is associated with two different dimensions, this is pretty problematic.”
This is a typo. Please see line 235.
“Page 6, line 203: It appears the overall interest in STEM is less than 300 in Norway. Would this qualify in the medium level?”
We have added approximately, so that 297 is in the interval. Please see line 269
“In the discussion of the CFA, you mentioned that you needed to remove geography to fit the six SCCT dimensions. However, you report results for Geography in your country comparison tables. Is there any concern that these results are inaccurate given your discussion related to the CFA? Further, is it problematic to include in the FA a dimension that has only 1 item?”
Geography is a STEM subject in Russia and Finland, but in Norway it is a social science subject. We wanted to include it, since it is relevant for two of the countries. In the CFA the geography has to be one type of variable, and can not be included. The CFA is only included for validation of the questionnaire.
“Why are not all STEM subscales included in exploring gender differences?”
This is clarified by change of the title for each gender difference table. Please see lines: 286, 300, 316, 328, 339, 352.
It seems you could test whether your hypothesis using SCCT as a guide could be statistically tested using this data. Since you present the idea that “self-efficacy affects outcome expectations and together they in-285 fluence on interests. Students are likely to develop interest, choose to pursue subjects of interest, and as a result, perform better at activities in subjects in which they have a stronger self-efficacy,” it would be helpful to determine whether these dimensions of SCCT are at least correlated. You could do this uniquely for each STEM subscale, or simply for STEM as a whole, but it would add a great deal to your overall argument, especially since you have the data to do so.”
By running a correlation study, and all these are correlated with a value of Kendall`s tau of 0.2. We have modified the manuscript. Please see lines 384-385.
With best regards from the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Small editorial suggestions attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your kind and thorough feedback on our paper. We have accommodated all comments in revising the manuscript. Below, we refer to your recommendations for modifications and locate where this is done by “Track function” and line numbers.
We have modified the manuscript with respect to your constructive suggestions.
The references 13-15 do not clarify why girls set more goals in the area of study, relationships and self-realizations than boys.
We have done minor modifications according to your suggestions. Please see lines: 369-371, 396-398, 416-417 and 427.
With best regards from the authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper analyzes STEM Career Interest Surveys (STEM-CIS) to measure secondary school students’ aspirations related to STEM subjects and careers. The survey concerns Finland, Norway and Russia and several science disciplines.
The results show that the interest in the STEM-subjects in general is not at high level in any of the studied countries. The traditional gender gap regarding STEM-subjects in every dimension in favor of girls in biology and in favor of boys in technology and engineering is also observed here. STEM stereotypes among students due to few accesses to STEM-professions information at school can explain students’ low interest. The study shows that it would necessary to increase informal learning opportunities and improve career counselling for pupils in order to be more informed of STEM-career opportunities.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your feedback on our paper.
With best regards from the authors
Reviewer 4 Report
A more precise explanation of the main constructs is necessary for this otherwise well-presented research of an important educational issue. Please, note, that 'self-efficacy' is not self-evident notion as it can mean and be measured differently, depending if self-efficacy is understood from a subjective point of view (as achivement of some personal goals), or objectively (as e.g. the overall grade achived in school). Thereforeq it needs to be defined in the context of the research, presented in the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your kind and thorough feedback on our paper. We have accommodated all comments in revising the manuscript. Below, we refer to your recommendations for modifications and locate where this is done by “Track function” and line numbers.
“A more precise explanation of the main constructs is necessary for this otherwise well-presented research of an important educational issue. Please, note, that 'self-efficacy' is not self-evident notion as it can mean and be measured differently, depending if self-efficacy is understood from a subjective point of view (as achievement of some personal goals), or objectively (as e.g. the overall grade achieved in school).Therefore, it needs to be defined in the context of the research, presented in the paper.”
In order to accommodate your suggestion, we have expanded the theoretical framework. Please see lines 139-172.
Best regards from the authors.
Reviewer 5 Report
- The main objective of the research is to investigate the suitability of the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS) to measure secondary school students’ aspirations towards STEM subjects and careers. Thus, the authors should do more analysis of the measure model, and model fit by structural equation model (SEM).
- The background of this study and the research problem are unclear. Thus, the authors should add a new section about the background of this research.
- Much of the research on the career aspirations of school students is based on the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)... The authors should explain more in Section 1. 1. Theoretical framework about the research theories that are related and why they chose SCCT.
- Data was analyzed on the IBM SPSS Statistics 27 package. The authors should explain more how they analyzed Figure 1. CFA fit of the six-dimension mode.
- The authors should show the values in figure 1,... I suggest adding a new table to show the results for all items.
- Limitations and future works are absent from this study... thus, I propose adding a new section for limitations and future works before the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to thank you for your kind and thorough feedback on our paper. We have accommodated all comments in revising the manuscript. Below, we refer to your recommendations for modifications and locate where this is done by “Track function” and line numbers.
Can be improved:
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
We have gone through our theory and made some changes. We have expanded the theoretical framework and explained the theoretical constructs more thoroughly.
Can be improved:
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
We have clarified the background of the study and the research problem.
Can be improved:
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
We have modified the manuscript, and you can see our answers to your comments.
Must be improved:
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
We have modified the manuscript, and you can see our answers to your comments.
Can be improved:
Is the article adequately referenced?
We have added two more references.
“The main objective of the research is to investigate the suitability of the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS) to measure secondary school students’ aspirations towards STEM subjects and careers. Thus, the authors should do more analysis of the measure model, and model fit by structural equation model (SEM).”
This instrument (CIS-STEM) is developed by Kier et al (2014), and we only used CFA to validate it for our study. Thus, our aim was not to analyze this model, nor find a model fit by SEM.
“The background of this study and the research problem are unclear. Thus, the authors should add a new section about the background of this research”
The background is described in our previous paper [2], and it is described in the manuscript at lines: 30-39.
“Much of the research on the career aspirations of school students is based on the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)... The authors should explain more in Section 1. 1. Theoretical framework about the research theories that are related and why they chose SCCT.”
We have expanded the theoretical framework and explained the theoretical constructs more thoroughly. Please see lines 139-172.
“Data was analyzed on the IBM SPSS Statistics 27 package. The authors should explain more how they analyzed Figure 1. CFA fit of the six-dimension mode”
As mentioned in the manuscript, the CFA was analyzed by the lavaan package in R (statistical computation environment), and CFA is only used for validation of the questionnaire, and not a study in itself. Please see lines 242-243. The IBM SPSS Statistics 27 package was only used for the descriptive statistics. Please see line 222
“The authors should show the values in figure 1,... I suggest adding a new table to show the results for all items.”
As mentioned above, the CFA was only used as a validation of the questionnaire. We include the figure as an illustration of the factors in each dimension. If we should include a table, it would be the factor loadings, and we do not consider it as relevant.
“Limitations and future works are absent from this study... thus, I propose adding a new section for limitations and future works before the conclusions.”
We have modified the manuscript according to your suggestions. Please see lines 440-454.
With best regards from the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
