An analysis of the role of peers in supporting female students’ choices in science subjects

Abstract

This exploratory study investigated the role and importance of peers in providing personal and academic support for Year 11 female students, enrolled in physics and biology. While these areas of support had been identified in earlier research by Holland and Eisenhart (1981), this study attempted to investigate further their importance within an Australian context. Questionnaires, completed by one hundred female students, were analysed using Principal Components Analysis and MANOVA. The statistical analysis found no significant differences between the six relevant factors and science subjects, however, significant differences emerged in relation to schools and particular factors. Subsequently, six interviews were conducted with selected students to elaborate upon the statistical differences that emerged from these results. The interviews corroborated the findings of the quantitative analysis and provided explanations for these differences. Overall, the results of this study suggest that while the supportive role provided by peers is similar regardless of the science subject undertaken by a female student, this role varies between schools.

University Programme Preferences of High School Science Students in Singapore and Reasons that Matter in their Preferences: A Rasch analysis

“…In other words, students' relationship with their peers grows stronger and they tend to develop deeper social connections with those who share similar attitudes towards science as the school year progresses. Contradictory results have also been reported that while inputs from peers are valued, their opinions regarding future career choices do not directly influence students' enrolment choices (Dalgety & Coll, 2004;Panizzon & Levins, 1997), or that it just appears to be slightly influential (Robertson, 2000). A study has also reported that young people rarely recognize the influence of peers (Brooks, 2003).…”

“…For example, peers are said to exert influence on the choice of subject to pursue in science, nonetheless some repudiated such claims (Panizzon & Levins, 1997). Others have reported that the influence of parents on their children's enrolment choices is more significant than that of peers (Kremer & Walberg, 1981, reported in Dalgety & Coll, 2004.…”

“…For example, physical science subjects are perceived to have an image that is not personal and not caring (Kelly, 1987) while biology is regarded as projecting an image that is nurturing and people-centric (Jones, 1987). The image of physics and chemistry as being difficult and irrelevant has also contributed towards students' negative attitudes towards these subjects (Erlikh, 2013;Kessels, Rau, & Hannover, 2006;Panizzon & Levins, 1997). Transforming negative attitudes of students towards science learning into positive ones is important for stakeholders (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2010).…”

“…Oon & Subramaniam, 2013). Students need to rate all the reasons provided in the survey instead of only four as in the study by Panizzon and Levins (1997). The raw scores can then be converted into linear measures in unit logit (e g. Career consideration is four logits more important than parental influence).…”

“…It is also time-efficient (Robertson, 2000). Panizzon and Levins (1997) used a ranking scale to survey reasons why a subject is chosen-students were required to rank only four reasons in order of importance, using '1' (most important) to '4' (least important). We opted not to use this type of ranking scale because such an approach does not flesh out the precise distance between the ranks; for example, the distance between 'Important' and 'Very Important' is not accurately known.…”