Presented in the 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
Objective
Subject-related identities have been linked to important educational outcomes and consist of identifying as a math person, physics person, and an engineer. These identities are formed through interrelated factors such as interest in the subject, beliefs about being able to understand the subject material (i.e., performance/competence beliefs), and internal/external recognition. In this research study, I examined the differences in subject-related role identities of first-generation and continuing-generation college students by gender.
Method
The data came from a large-scale survey administered in introductory to engineering courses at 32 four- year ABET accredited institutions. Women in particular were significantly more likely to be interested in mathematics compared to men. Additionally, our study indicates that women first- generation and continuing-generation college students were less likely to be recognized externally and internally as a physics person, while men continuing-generation college students were more likely to have external and internal recognition in physics. Both men first-generation and continuing-generation college student groups were more likely to feel confident in their abilities to understand and do well in physics. Men in both groups were more likely to feel confident in their abilities to understand and do well in engineering compared to women in either group. Both women and men who are first-generation college students were less likely to feel like engineers in their first-semester of their engineering program. These results illustrate the areas of strength with which first-generation and continuing-generation college students enter engineering programs, as well as the areas of continued support for their developing identities.
Research Questions
1) Are there differences in students’ mathematics role identity measures at the intersection of gender and parents’ level of education?
2) Are there differences in students’ physics role identity measures at the intersection of gender and parents’ level of education?
3) Are there differences in students’ engineering role identity measures of students at the intersection of gender and parents’ level of education?
Theoretical Framing
A role is described as a “set of expectations tied to a social position that guide people’s attitudes and behaviors” [20, p. 114]. The social position of being a “student” is intimately tied to the role (i.e., expectations) of learning, acquiring new skill sets, studying, passing courses, progressing towards degree completion. The expectations of a role are learned through a range of interactions with others. Understanding the definition of a role is important to the definition of role identity. A role identity consists of “internalized meanings of a role that individuals apply to themselves” and expectations associated with the roles [20, p. 114]. The internalized meanings and expectations guide behavior and help define who is in that specific role [21]. For example, a student who takes on a role identity of an engineer adopts the meanings and expectations that accompany the specific role “and then act[s] to represent and preserve these meanings and expectations [22]. Our study is situated in the post-secondary context; therefore, students occupy a role identity, not through a professionalization lens (i.e., physicist) but through a subject context lens (i.e., physics person, math person, or engineering). This form of identification is understood through Gee’s interpretation of identity as “being recognized as a certain ‘kind of person’ in a given context” [23, p. 99]. Thus, the authoring of a role identity within these contexts is done through three dimensions: interest, recognition, and performance/competence beliefs.
Students learn the meaning of being a physics “kind of person” or engineering “kind of person” when they display an ability to perform their competence and understanding of subject content material. In framing a science identity, Carlone and Johnson [24] defined performance as “relevant scientific practices (e.g., ways of talking and using tools)” and competence as “knowledge and understanding of science content” [p. 1191]. Recognition is, therefore, both an external manifestation and internal state, both of which are required for identity development [24], [25]. Gee [26] noted the contextual identity a student seeks to take on is further reinforced when “they are recognized by [themselves] or others” [p. 102].
The construct of interest was incorporated into the identity framework by Hazari et al. [27] to foreground the importance of developing interest for non-professionals in STEM career pathways instead of treating it as an implicit component of engagement. Interest has both an affective component (i.e., emotions accompanying engagement) and a cognitive component (i.e., activities related to engagement) [28], [29]. Interest is an internal state, yet students’ interaction with content and their environment can promote or hinder interest development [28]. Interest is content specific and is not a general predisposition [30]. This framing of interest is important towards capturing students’ interest in subjects such as mathematics, physics, and engineering.
To synthesize, students take on subject-related role identities when they hold interest in the subject, receive and internalize the recognition as a kind of person in a particular context, and demonstrate efficacy beliefs in understanding and displaying competency in the subject-related area. Recent work has shown that these three constructs are equally important for developing an identity as a math person, physics person, and engineer [9], [31].