Written evidence submitted by Professor Louise Archer, Karl Mannheim Professor of Sociology of Education, UCL IOE and the ASPIRES project team (DIV0021)

This evidence summary presents relevant evidence from four linked research projects led by Professor Archer (details below). We cover points 2, 4 and 5 from the inquiry’s terms of reference: (A) the reasons why women, ethnic minorities and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are underrepresented in STEM; (B) what has been done to address underrepresentation of particular groups in STEM roles; and (C) what could and should be done by the UK Government, UK Research and Innovation, other funding bodies, industry and academia to address the issues identified.

Evidence base

• ASPIRES: Young people’s science and career aspirations age 10-23 (website)

A major national 13-year longitudinal mixed methods research project funded by the UKRI Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) investigating the factors that influence young people’s education and careers interests and outcomes, with a specific focus on science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Evidence base includes over 47,500 survey responses from a tracked cohort of individuals at six different stages of their education (through primary, secondary and tertiary education) and now moving into the labour market at age 22/23; complimented by 742 interviews with this cohort of young people and their parents.

• Primary Science Capital Teaching Approach project (website)

3-year research and development project funded by the Primary Science Teaching Trust and The Odgen Trust, conducted with UK primary teachers to co-develop an inclusive teaching approach for engaging all young people with science. Survey, interview and observation data from pupils and teachers who trialled the approach.

• Secondary Science Capital Teaching Approach (website)

5-year research and development work with secondary school teachers and students in England to co-develop the secondary approach. Data set includes surveys with 1,871 students and extensive interview and observation data from pupils and teachers who trialled the approach.

• Youth Equity & STEM project (website)

5-year UK-US research and development project funded by the Wellcome Trust, (US) National Science Foundation and ESRC identifying how to support more inclusive and diverse participation in STEM through informal science learning (ISL). Conducted in partnership with ISL partners - including science centres, a zoo, STEM clubs, a community arts organisation - and young people. Detailed qualitative observation and interview data, and quantitative survey data from 1,624 young people.

(A) - Evidence on the reasons why particular communities are underrepresented in STEM

To date, our research[1] has identified a number of main factors shaping the likelihood of a young person, age 10-19 (i) aspiring to and continuing with STEM after age 16 and (ii) developing a ‘science identity’, i.e., seeing themselves and being seen by others as a ‘science person’/ science-y (see figure 1).

• 
  Interest in science does not translate into continuing with science. Extensively, our survey findings confirm that, on average between age 10-18, most young people are interested in science (67%), and think scientists do valuable work (78%) but do not aspire to become a scientist (only 16% aspires to become a scientist) [figure 1]1.

Figure 1: A summary of young people’s science interest, perceptions and aspirations by age – survey data from over 40,000 students aged 10-181.

*Only asked of students aged 17/18 studying at least one science A Level.

**The data from students aged 17/18 is weighted to national A Level science entries.

• Popular associations of science as being “difficult”, “masculine” and only for the “clever” played an important part in dissuading many young people from science, particularly discouraging young women from pursuing physics[2].These stereotypes were perpetuated by school science and popular media and deter even high attaining young people from continuing.

• Teachers, education practices and curricula can have a significant impact on young people’s passion for a subject. Students from working-class backgrounds and students from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to experience high teacher turnover and report experiences of poor-quality teaching. Young men report receiving more encouragement from teachers to continue with STEM (24% strongly agree), compared with young women (14% strongly agree)1.

• Science Capital[3], [4] is strongly related to an individual’s science (and STEM) interests, opinions of STEM, and science careers aspirations. In short, a young person with ‘high’ levels of science capital is significantly more likely to see themselves as a science person and to both aspire to and continue studying science after the age of 16. Science capital also relates to STEM aspirations and attitudes more generally. For example, a young person with high science capital is nearly 2.5 times more likely to aspire to engineering4, [5].

• Educational gate-keeping practices that restrict entry to the prestigious ‘triple science’ GCSE route and to A level physics and chemistry were found to deter many highly interested students from pursuing STEM. Access to Science A Levels often requires higher grades (A*s/ As) at GCSE to progress compared with non-STEM subjects[6].

• Informal STEM learning opportunities are unevenly spread and most currently fail to engage STEM-interested young people from under-represented communities. Specifically, underserved groups interested in science or technology were more likely to be from ethnic minority backgrounds and as little as 6% of these young people visit science museums, centres or planetariums at least once per year[7].

• Careers education was found to be patterned in ways that promotes inequalities relating to gender, ethnicity and social class. Those young people who arguably could have benefitted most from careers support were the least likely to report having received careers education by age 16. Only 63% of young people received any careers education at secondary school and those from low socio-economic backgrounds were less likely to have received careers support (52% reported receiving careers education). Of those who were offered careers education, young people from less advantaged backgrounds were more likely to be dissatisfied with the support they received[8].

(B) - What has been done to address underrepresentation of particular groups in STEM

Our research and development work has created a range of resources to help teachers and informal STEM educators to better serve and engage with young people from minoritized and under-represented communities.

• The primary[9] and secondary[10] Science Capital Teaching Approach (SCTA) handbooks and resources (co-created with teachers) are compatible with any curriculum and focus on making classrooms more equitable for young people and reducing existing barriers to participation with STEM. Evidence from trials of teachers using the approach with their classes record significant gains in student engagement, attainment, aspirations, science capital and participation in out-of-school STEM learning. After adopting the SCTA, 42% of students felt science was relevant to their lives, compared to only 27% before[11].

• The Equity Compass reflective tool helps teachers and informal STEM educators to understand how to create more equitable and engaging STEM learning experiences. The tool was co-created with informal STEM learning practitioners, teachers, school governors and researchers, with specific versions tailored for different professions. Evidence shows that the tool supports critical professional reflection and assists practitioners reaching wider communities with their STEM engagement work[12].

(C) - Recommendations for policy makers, STEM practitioners and funders for how to support more diverse participation in STEM

• Build young people’s science capital by providing teachers with relevant professional development and access to resources, such as the primary and secondary versions of the Science Capital Teaching Approach.

• Support teachers and informal STEM educators to understand how science education unintentionally puts young people off STEM and how they can create more inclusive science learning contexts and experiences. For example, by promoting and resourcing access to professional development opportunities (PDO) and tools such as the Equity Compass.

• Support initial teacher education (ITE), alongside offering teacher and informal STEM educator PDO, to critically reflect on practices that perpetuating damaging stereotypes. This offer should support practitioners to understand, identify and challenge damaging stereotypes of STEM as being ‘hard’/ ‘difficult’ and ‘masculine’; that being good at STEM is based on a ‘natural talent’; and to challenge deficit views of under-represented communities as ‘lacking’ - for example, lacking interest, motivation, or knowledge.

• Government and those working with young people should foreground and incorporate a focus on issues of diversity and social justice within all STEM education policy and practice – repositioning STEM as a vehicle for social justice rather than a destination – to create more powerful and effective change.

• Government and educators in England could usefully, critically review the differentiation of science routes at Key Stage 3 (as currently happening in Wales) and interrogate the ongoing practice of grade severity in key subjects at A level. Discussions could also be usefully initiated with STEM degree providers to explore options and benefits of reviewing highly restrictive selective entry criteria, for example as has been introduced within some engineering degrees and veterinary science degrees.

• Funders of careers support could monitor and review the extent to which high-quality careers education, support and opportunities are reaching all students, but particularly those from low income and minoritized communities.

• Funders can usefully review the balance of informal STEM engagement opportunities and offers that they fund to ensure that there is sufficient emphasis on long-term partnership work with specific communities, not just one-off activities that are aimed at ‘general’ audiences. Activities should not only focus on young people being inspired or interested in the STEM content, but also prioritise the (non-traditional) STEM knowledge and value that young people can offer and bring to engagement activity.

• Urgent consideration needs to be given to the importance of ensuring that ITE and PDO can support high-quality, evidence-informed, critical professional reflection among STEM teachers. Supporting educators to understand and effectively challenge the reproduction of inequalities within STEM participation, particularly regarding the ways in which common teaching practices can unwittingly play a part in maintaining patterns of under-representation. Investing in high-quality, sustained research-practice partnerships, within both ITE and PDO, can provide effective routes in this respect.

January 2022

5