Transforming
Interest in STEM Disciplines in Secondary Education: A Feminist Perspective
Transformando
el interés por disciplinas STEM en Educación Secundaria: una mirada feminista
Andrea Fernández-Sánchez. Universidad de A Coruña. España.
Ana Sánchez-Bello. Universidad de A
Coruña. España.
Alicia Arias-Rodríguez. Universidad de A
Coruña. Españ.
Received: 2026-03-07; Revised: 2026-03-13; Accepted: 2026-04-17; Published: 2026-09-01
How
to cite:
Fernández-Sánchez, A., Sánchez-Bello,
A., Arias-Rodríguez, A. (2026). Transforming Interest in STEM Disciplines in
Secondary Education: A Feminist Perspective [Transformando el interés por
disciplinas STEM en Educación Secundaria: una mirada feminista]. Pixel-Bit,
Revista de Medios y Educación, 77, Art. 4. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.120489
ABSTRACT
This study examines how secondary school students construct the subjective value of technology subjects through active methodologies and how this experience relates to STEM interest from a gender perspective. A qualitative approach was adopted, with a multiple case study in two public schools in Galicia implementing project-based learning and cooperative work in technology and programming. Data collection included eleven mixed focus groups, four group interviews with female students, and two semi-structured interviews with the subject teachers. Results indicate that active methodologies generate a model where practice is integrated with theory, enhancing understanding and situational motivation. Task contextualization and collaborative work reinforce intrinsic value and perceived utility, although this effect is mainly situational and does not automatically determine future STEM study choices. Perceived cost, related to abstract subjects and expectations of difficulty, limits the consolidation of interest and affects girls and boys differently. In conclusion, methodological innovation partially transforms students’ perceptions, but its impact depends on identity, cultural, and gender factors, highlighting the need to consider symbolic and emotional dimensions in technology education.
RESUMEN
La presente investigación analiza cómo
el alumnado de Educación Secundaria construye el valor subjetivo de las materias
tecnológicas mediante metodologías activas y cómo esta experiencia se relaciona
con el interés hacia STEM desde una perspectiva de género. Se adoptó un enfoque
cualitativo, con estudio de caso múltiple en dos centros públicos gallegos que
aplican aprendizaje basado en proyectos y trabajo cooperativo en las materias
de tecnología y programación. La recogida de datos incluyó once grupos de
discusión mixtos, cuatro entrevistas grupales con alumnas y dos entrevistas
semiestructuradas al profesorado de las materias. Los resultados muestran que
las metodologías activas generan un modelo donde la práctica se integra con la
teoría, incrementando la comprensión y la motivación situacional. La
contextualización de las tareas y el trabajo colaborativo refuerzan el valor
intrínseco y la utilidad percibida, aunque este efecto es situacional y no
determina automáticamente la elección futura de estudios STEM. El coste
percibido, vinculado a materias abstractas y expectativas de dificultad, limita
la consolidación del interés y afecta de manera diferencial a chicas y chicos.
En conclusión, la innovación metodológica transforma parcialmente las
percepciones del alumnado, pero su impacto depende de factores identitarios,
culturales y de género, subrayando la necesidad de considerar dimensiones
simbólicas y emocionales en la enseñanza tecnológica.
KEYWORDS · PALABRAS
CLAVES
Secondary education; science
education; student motivation; gender equality; active learning · Educación
secundaria; educación científica; motivación estudiantil; igualdad de género;
aprendizaje activo.
1.
Introduction
In recent years, international debate has
intensified the role of education in contexts marked by uncertainty,
complexity, and technological acceleration. In this scenario, science education
takes on a central role by contributing to the formation of citizens capable of
understanding scientific phenomena, participating in socioscientific debates,
and making informed decisions (Justi, 2007). However, this aspiration coexists
with a historical configuration of school science that has tended to prioritise
the transmission of abstract and decontextualised content, fundamentally
oriented towards preparing a minority for higher education (Rivero et al.,
2017). This tension is manifested in the so-called “crisis in science
education,” characterised by the progressive loss of interest in STEM disciplines,
especially during the transition from primary to secondary education. Various
studies have pointed out that this disengagement is related to the
disconnection between the school curriculum and students’ everyday lives, as
well as to the perception of science as difficult, scarcely relevant knowledge
far removed from their experience (Vázquez & Manassero, 2005, 2008, 2009;
Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2004). Far from constituting an exclusively
motivational phenomenon, this disengagement has structural consequences for
educational trajectories, shaping the choice of studies and contributing to
declining interest in scientific-technological pathways (Ulriksen et al., 2015;
Vázquez & Manassero, 2010).
In this context, research has highlighted that
the choice of studies does not depend solely on academic performance, but
rather on a complex network of social and psychological factors, among which
attitudes towards science, self-perception of competence, and expectations of success
stand out (Osborne et al., 2003; Cleaves, 2005; Marbá & Márquez, 2009; Luo
et al., 2021; Cobreros et al., 2024). These dimensions are also mediated by
gender socialisation processes that influence the way boys and girls interpret
their relationship with scientific-technological disciplines, in some cases
fostering processes of early self-exclusion (Archer & DeWitt, 2015; Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002; Luo et al., 2021; Master et al., 2016).
At this point, it is particularly useful to draw
on motivational frameworks that make it possible to understand why students
approach or distance themselves from certain subjects beyond academic
performance. The Expectancy-Value model (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield &
Eccles, 1992; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) holds that educational decisions
depend on two components: expectations of success and the subjective value
assigned to the task. This value is articulated through four interrelated dimensions:
interest (intrinsic value), attainment value, perceived utility, and cost
(Wigfield & Eccles, 1992; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Evidence identifies
these dimensions as relevant predictors of STEM motivation, showing that
inequalities do not respond solely to ability, but to how beliefs about
competence and value are constructed in interaction with context (Chen et al.,
2024). In this sense, gender differences are linked to differentiated assessments
of these dimensions, mediated by socialisation processes and stereotypes that
influence students’ relationship with scientific-technological disciplines
(Regan & DeWitt, 2015).
At the same time, educational reforms have
emphasised the transformation of methodological approaches, promoting
strategies that place students as active agents in the construction of
knowledge (Vílchez & Bravo, 2015). In science education, there is broad
consensus on moving beyond the transmissive model through inquiry-based
approaches, contextualisation, project-based learning, or cooperative work
(Ferreira-Gauchía et al., 2012; Aguilera & Perales-Palacios, 2020; Aragón
et al., 2018). Along these lines, Caamaño (2011) argues that the coherent integration
of these approaches constitutes a privileged pathway to promote meaningful and
socially relevant learning. From the perspective of the Expectancy-Value model,
these methodological transformations are relevant insofar as they may affect
the construction of the subjective value of STEM subjects. Beyond describing
how teaching takes place, this approach makes it possible to analyse how
students interpret their learning experience and how this interpretation is
translated into evaluations that may sustain or erode their relationship with
these disciplines. From a gender perspective, this analysis becomes especially
relevant, since such experiences may influence the construction of interest, perceptions
of competence, and processes of identification with scientific-technological
fields.
Despite the broad consensus surrounding the
need to renew science teaching methodologically and the growing body of
scientific literature on attitudes towards STEM disciplines, important gaps
remain in the literature. First, much of the research on scientific
disengagement and choice of studies has been developed through quantitative
approaches based on large-scale surveys (Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2004; Barmby et
al., 2008; Vázquez & Manassero, 2008), as well as systematic reviews on
interest and motivation (Potvin & Hasni, 2014). Although these studies make
it possible to identify general trends, they relegate to the background an
understanding of the meanings that students assign to their school experience
and its influence on the construction of the value of scientific-technological
subjects. Second, although methodological innovation is presented as a way to
reverse the loss of interest, qualitative research analysing its implementation
in real classroom contexts and its interpretation by students remains limited
(Ulriksen et al., 2015; Holmegaard et al., 2014). Finally, although the gender
gap in STEM has been widely documented (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Archer
& DeWitt, 2015), few studies integrate the analysis of methodological
experiences with the construction of subjective value and the differentiated
positionings of boys and girls towards these disciplines.
Within this framework, understanding how
students experience and make sense of their learning in technological subjects
developed through active methodologies becomes especially relevant for
advancing the renewal of secondary education. Beyond normative statements on
the need to innovate, it is necessary to analyse how these practices are
interpreted by students and to what extent they contribute to generating
inclusive learning experiences and reinforcing interest in STEM, especially from
a gender perspective.
The present study is situated at the
intersection of research on STEM motivation, methodological innovation, and
gender perspective, and aims to analyse how students in Secondary Education
construct the subjective value of technological subjects, within the framework
of the Expectancy-Value model, when these are taught through active
methodologies, as well as to explore how this experience is articulated with interest
in STEM disciplines from a feminist perspective. Specifically, the study aims
to:
·
Analyse how students describe
the teaching-learning methodologies used in the classroom.
·
Examine how these experiences
influence the subjective value attributed to the subject (interest, enjoyment,
and perceived utility).
·
Explore possible gender
differences in the construction of these perceptions.
2. Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative approach with a
gender perspective and is configured as an instrumental multiple case study
(Stake, 2006). It forms part of a broader research project conducted in two
Galician public schools offering Secondary Education (ESO), both characterised
by the sustained implementation of active methodologies in technological
subjects. The design follows an interpretive logic aimed at understanding how
students construct the meaning of their experience in these subjects and how
this experience is linked to their interest in and the subjective value
attributed to STEM disciplines.
2.1. Case and participant selection
The selection was carried out through purposive
sampling guided by theoretical-practical criteria. The aim was to identify
teachers responsible for technological subjects in Secondary Education who
integrated active methodologies in a structural way (rather than as isolated
experiences), including practices linked to project/challenge-based learning, collaborative
work, inquiry, or modelling, and who were willing to participate in a study
involving data collection through conversational techniques and the analysis of
pedagogical materials.
The cases are anonymised through pseudonyms:
IES “Margaret Hamilton” and CPI “Ada Lovelace”. The former is a public
secondary school in the province of Pontevedra, without upper secondary
education and with two class groups per year in Secondary Education; the latter
is an integrated school in the province of A Coruña providing education from
pre-primary to Year 11 of Secondary Education. In both contexts, students
mainly come from surrounding rural areas.
In total, 53 students in Secondary Education
participated, all enrolled in technological subjects taught by the selected
teachers: at IES “Margaret Hamilton”, 20 students participated (15 boys and 5
girls), enrolled in Year 11 Technology and ICT; at CPI “Ada Lovelace”, 33 students
participated (16 boys and 17 girls), enrolled in Year 8 Programming.
Participation was voluntary and required written parental consent. Anonymity
was guaranteed through the use of pseudonyms and the removal of identifying
data from transcripts and results.
The sample configuration responds to a
qualitative case study design, aimed at an in-depth understanding of the
processes involved in the construction of subjective value in specific contexts,
rather than at the statistical generalisation of results.
2.2. Data collection
For this article, data collection was
concentrated in three main techniques: mixed-gender focus groups with students,
semi-structured interviews with teachers, and group interviews exclusively with
girls. A total of 11 mixed-gender focus groups were conducted (4-6
participants, approximately 50 minutes in duration), centred on three axes:
methodological experience, image of science, and subjective value attributed to
STEM. Four semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers, aimed at
understanding their conceptions of STEM teaching, the implementation of active
methodologies, and their perceptions of student response. Finally, four group
interviews exclusively with girls were conducted (4-6 participants,
approximately 30 minutes in duration) in order to contrast them with the
discourses emerging in the mixed groups and to explore more deeply girls’
relationship with technological subjects.
2.3. Analysis procedure
The analysis was conducted using an
inductive-deductive content analysis approach. Initially, units of meaning
related to methodological experience and the subjective value attributed to
STEM subjects were identified. Subsequently, these units were grouped into
thematic categories through constant intra- and inter-case comparison. The
coding process and corpus organisation were carried out using MAXQDA software, which
made it possible to systematise the codebook, record analytical memos, and
ensure traceability between data, categories, and interpretations.
To ensure the traceability of the discursive
excerpts, each quotation was identified through an alphanumeric coding system.
The first element indicates the data collection technique (GD = focus group; EA
= group interview with female students), followed by the acronym of the
participating school (MH = IES “Margaret Hamilton”; AL = CPI “Ada Lovelace”) and
the session number. Thus, for example, the code GD-MH-1 corresponds to mixed
focus group number 1 conducted at the Margaret Hamilton school.
Based on the analysis, a categorical system was
constructed and organised into four main analytical dimensions: methodological
experience, perceived utility, intrinsic value, and perceived cost, whose
categories and representative examples are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1
Category system with
conversational textual excerpts
|
Dimension |
Analytical category |
Contextualised student excerpt |
Code |
|
Methodological experience |
Theory-practice binomial |
“You cram the theory for
the exam and then forget it. But when you do it yourself and see how it
works, you understand it better.” |
GD1-AL |
|
“The moment you are going to do the practical
work, you learn more. You learn the theory for the exam and then… maybe you
do not remember it. But when you do it and see how it works, it stays with
you.” |
|||
|
Contextualisation and tangibility |
Moderator: “Is it easier
to learn maths using robots?” —Everyone: “Yes.” — “Why?” — “Because it is
more fun… and you can see what you are doing.” |
EG2-AL |
|
|
Cooperation
as cognitive support |
“Because everyone contributes a small part of
themselves… so if you do not understand something, someone else explains it
to you and you can rely on them.” |
GD1-MH-1 |
|
|
Perceived utility |
Immediate utility |
“In fact, we use it
quite a lot, for example, if we are going to paint the classroom, we need to know
the mixture for making the paint, and we learned that here.” |
GD3-MH, |
|
Projective
utility |
“It helps us a lot because in the future we
are going to be using computing all the time… knowing how to program robots
because supposedly in the future there will be more of them.” |
GD2-AL-1 |
|
|
Insufficient utility for choice |
“If you do not like it…
I do not think you will get good marks. Even if it is useful, if you do not
like it, you are not going to put in the same effort.” |
EG1-AL |
|
|
Intrinsic value |
Enjoyment
as a driver of decision-making |
“You have to like them, if you do not like
them you are doing badly… If you do not like them, forget it, because no
matter how hard you try, if you do not like it, it will not go in.” |
GD1-MH-2 |
|
Situational interest |
“We learn to programme
in an easy and fun way… because she always gives us famous things that we
know very well and that makes it easier to understand.” |
GD5-AL |
|
|
Perceived cost |
Difficulty
of other disciplines |
“From the very beginning, Physics just did
not click with me… it was quite difficult… its exams were very strange, or
you wrote it exactly as in the book or you got it wrong. It got to a point
where it was a matter of seeing who…” |
|
|
Anticipatory vocational cost |
“Mathematics is useful
and you are going to need it… but I would not choose a degree that was based on it.” |
EG3-AL |
2.4. Rigour and ethical considerations
The rigour of the study was supported through the
triangulation of sources and techniques, contrasting students’ discourses
(mixed groups and contrast interviews) with teacher interviews. Likewise, a
logic of constant comparison was applied throughout the analysis, and
interpretive decisions were documented through memos, thereby enhancing the
transparency and traceability of the process.
Ethical considerations constituted a
cross-cutting axis of the study. Since the research was conducted with minors, written
informed consent was obtained from families or legal guardians, and the
voluntary nature of participation was guaranteed. Confidentiality was ensured
through the anonymisation of schools and participants, and the data were stored
securely and used exclusively for academic purposes. The study was conducted in
accordance with the ethical principles of educational research and current data
protection regulations.
3. Results
3.1. Methodological
reconfiguration: from the transmissive model to the active model
In both cases analysed, the incorporation of
active methodologies such as project-based learning and cooperative work
significantly reconfigures students’ school experience in
scientific-technological subjects. In the mixed discussion groups, students describe
these methodologies as more dynamic and participatory forms of learning, in
which practice occupies a central role in the understanding of content
(GD-MH-1; GD-MH-3; GD-AL-1; GD-AL-2). However, the data do not show a radical
replacement of the traditional model, but rather a hybrid articulation in which
theoretical explanation maintains a structuring role, although subordinated to
practice.
Moreover, students do not reject theory in
itself, but rather its decontextualised and memoristic use. As one student
summarises: “it is not just memorising, it is understanding and visualising
what you are doing” (GD-MH-1). This idea appears repeatedly in different
discussion groups, where it is pointed out that theory is useful when it makes
it possible to understand what is done in practice or to solve a specific task,
but loses legitimacy when it is perceived as accumulation oriented exclusively
towards the exam (GD-MH-1; GD-MH-2; GD-AL-2). The girls interviewed
specifically reinforce this interpretation by pointing out that understanding
how what is built or programmed works facilitates learning and reduces the
initial sense of difficulty (EA-MH-1; EA-AL-1).
Practice thus appears as a privileged space for
learning. In the discussion groups in both schools, students associate
effective learning with the manipulation of materials, experimentation, or the
solving of specific problems (GD-MH-1; GD-MH-3; GD-AL-1). This experiential
dimension is reflected in expressions that directly link understanding with action,
reinforcing the idea that learning involves “doing” and experimenting with
content. In this sense, practice is not conceived solely as a subsequent
application of theory, but as a constitutive part of the process of knowledge
construction (GD-MH-1; GD-AL-2).
Learning is therefore understood as
manipulation, exploration, and problem-solving, rather than as reproduction of
content. This perception is reinforced especially in activities linked to project
development or work with devices and programming, where students can observe
the immediate result of their decisions and verify the functioning of what they
have built or programmed (GD-AL-1; GD-AL-2). The group interviews with girls
also show that this practical dimension may contribute to generating greater
confidence in carrying out technical tasks when these are presented as
trial-and-error processes (EA-AL-2; EA-MH-1).
However, this methodological shift does not imply
the elimination of formal structures. Some groups even acknowledge preferring
more structured methodologies in certain subjects, especially when the content
is perceived as more abstract or conceptually complex (GD-MH-2; GD-AL-3). These
assessments suggest that the acceptance of methodological innovation is not
homogeneous, but rather depends both on the type of content and on the specific
conditions of implementation in the classroom.
3.2. Contextualisation, cooperation, and
construction of interest
One of the most consistent findings is the role
of contextualisation in the activation of interest. In both schools, tasks are
based on familiar references: everyday objects, technological devices, or
recognisable cultural narratives that connect the curricular content with
students’ lived experience. In the discussion groups, students point out that
this type of activity facilitates the initial understanding of the content and
encourages engagement in the task (GD-AL-1; GD-AL-2; GD-MH-1; GD-MH-3). This
proximity reduces the cognitive distance between technological concepts and
everyday experience, allowing learning to be perceived as more accessible.
In programming, this connection becomes
explicit when students state: “we learn to programme in an easy and fun way…
because she always gives us famous things that we know very well” (GD-AL-1).
Familiarity with the references used in class acts as a bridge between abstract
content and students’ everyday experience. In the case of the technology
subject, practical utility is formulated in terms of everyday autonomy. As one
student points out: “To know how to fix things in your day-to-day life that you
are going to need” (GD-MH-1). In this sense, the relevance of the content is
not framed in abstract terms, but in relation to the ability to act on the
immediate environment.
The role of robots in programming activities is
especially significant. The tangible component intensifies situational
interest, as one student expresses it: “Robots are cooler because you can see
that you can do it” (GD-AL-2). The possibility of physically observing the
result of the code turns learning into a visible and verifiable experience, in
which students can immediately check how what they have programmed works. This
manipulative dimension appears recurrently in the discussion groups as an
element that increases motivation and facilitates the understanding of
technological content (GD-AL-1; GD-AL-2; GD-MH-3).
However, this interest is fundamentally
situational. Although programming and technology are described as dynamic,
entertaining, or “more didactic” subjects, they do not always occupy first
place in students’ academic preferences (GD-MH-2; GD-AL-3). In several
discussion groups, a broader representation of the sciences appears as “difficult”
or “boring” disciplines, especially when students recall previous experiences
in physics or mathematics (GD-MH-2; GD-AL-3). In this sense, practice improves
the perception of the specific subject, but does not automatically transform
the overall image of STEM disciplines.
Cooperative work appears as another relevant
factor in the active experience. Students particularly value peer support and
the possibility of understanding explanations from familiar perspectives. As one
student expresses it: “because everyone gives a small part of themselves… you
can rely on them” (GD-MH-1). In the discussion groups, this collaborative
dimension is associated with greater ease in solving problems or understanding
content when doubts and explanations are shared among classmates (GD-MH-1;
GD-AL-1).
However, the data reveal tensions between the
cooperative ideal and its actual implementation. In some groups, students acknowledge
that involvement in tasks is not always equitable and that certain people end
up assuming greater responsibility in the development of projects (GD-MH-3;
GD-AL-2). The group interviews conducted exclusively with girls make it
possible to nuance this issue, indicating that, at times, it is they who assume
a greater organisational burden within the working groups (EA-MH-1; EA-AL-2).
This aspect suggests that cooperative learning does not guarantee equitable
dynamics, but rather depends on the way in which teamwork is pedagogically
structured.
Taken together, the contextualisation of tasks
and cooperative work contribute to generating a more participatory and
emotionally engaging learning environment, favouring the emergence of
situational interest in technological subjects (GD-MH-1; GD-AL-1; GD-AL-2).
However, their impact is mediated by previous experiences and by already
consolidated representations of certain scientific disciplines, which limits their
capacity to automatically transform students’ academic preferences.
3.3. Perceived utility: between general
discourse and everyday experience
The perception of utility constitutes a central
component in students’ discourse, although it is manifested in an ambivalent
way. When asked general questions, most state that what they learn at school is
useful. However, when asked to provide a specific example, some students show
difficulties in specifying what this utility consists of, which suggests that this
notion may sometimes operate as a learned discourse rather than as a conviction
based on experience (GD-MH-2; GD-AL-3).
When reflection is directed towards specific
tasks carried out in the classroom, utility acquires greater concreteness. In
the technology subject, activities related to electrical installations or the
maintenance of devices are identified as learning directly applicable to
everyday life (GD-MH-1; GD-MH-3). In this sense, some students highlight that these
contents make it possible to understand and solve practical situations in the
domestic environment. As one student points out: “To know how to fix things in
your day-to-day life that you are going to need” (GD-MH-1).
In programming, utility is linked both to the
instrumental use of the computer and to understanding how digital systems or
technological devices work (GD-AL-1; GD-AL-2). Students identify these
competences as relevant in a social context increasingly mediated by
technology.
Likewise, in the discussion groups a
distinction emerges between immediate utility and projective utility. The
former refers to direct applicability in everyday life, whereas the latter is
linked to possible future academic or professional trajectories. In this sense,
students in the upper years tend to relate the utility of these subjects to the
choice of educational pathways or to professional opportunities linked to the
technological field (GD-MH-3; GD-AL-2), whereas in the early years reference to
their practical applicability in the present (GD-AL-1).
However, recognised utility does not
automatically determine the future choice of these subjects. In several
discussion groups, it is pointed out that liking and personal interest
constitute more determining factors in academic decision-making. As one student
expresses it: “if you do not like it already… I do not think you will get good
marks” (GD-AL-3). Similarly, another girl explains her choice by stating: “I like
it more… so I am going to put more effort into it” (GD-MH-2).
These discourses suggest that subjective
affinity with a subject conditions willingness to make an effort and
persistence in learning. Thus, even when students recognise the utility of
certain disciplines such as mathematics or computer engineering, they may
choose to avoid them if they perceive them as unattractive or excessively
complex (GD-MH-2; GD-AL-3). In this sense, utility appears as a relevant
condition for sustaining interest, but not sufficient in itself to guide
academic choices.
3.4.
Perceived cost, gender, and limits of transformation
The cost associated with certain disciplines
appears recurrently in students’ discourses, especially in relation to subjects
such as mathematics or physics. In different discussion groups, these subjects
are described as abstract, rigid, or particularly complex (GD-MH-2; GD-AL-3). The
perception of difficulty persists even in contexts where other subjects
incorporate active methodologies, suggesting that perceived cost is linked to
accumulated experiences and to consolidated social representations of certain
scientific disciplines.
In manipulative activities, cost frequently
takes the form of fear of making mistakes. Some girls express initial
insecurity in the face of technical tasks associated with workshop or the manipulation
of materials and tools. This insecurity is not related to the physical risk of
the activity, but rather to the possibility of making mistakes or not carrying
out the task correctly (EA-MH-1; EA-AL-2). However, these same girls point out
that, once this initial barrier has been overcome, practical experience can
contribute to strengthening their confidence in carrying out this type of
activity.
In cooperative learning, a relational cost also
emerges linked to the unequal distribution of work. Although students value
teamwork positively as a learning strategy, in some groups it is acknowledged
that involvement is not always equitable (GD-MH-3; GD-AL-2). This situation may
generate frustration or a sense of unfairness when certain people assume a
greater burden of responsibility in carrying out the tasks. The group
interviews with girls make it possible to nuance this issue, indicating that they
often end up assuming organisational or coordination roles within the working
groups (EA-AL-2; EA-MH-1).
At the vocational level, cost is also projected
onto certain academic pathways. In some discussion groups, degree programmes
linked to engineering appear described as particularly demanding or difficult
courses of study (GD-MH-2; GD-AL-3). In this context, some girls acknowledge
ruling out these options not because of a lack of interest, but because of doubts
about their ability to cope with them successfully (EA-AL-1). Perceived cost
thus incorporates emotional and anticipatory components that influence the
construction of future academic expectations.
4. Discussion
The results qualify the debate on
methodological renewal in secondary education, showing that what occurs is not
a substitution of the traditional model, but rather the configuration of a
model in which theory maintains its legitimacy when articulated with practice. This
finding enters into dialogue with the critiques of Rivero et al. (2017)
regarding the historically propaedeutic and decontextualised nature of school
science. Within this framework, contextualisation emerges as a key element in
the activation of interest. Linking content to familiar and meaningful
experiences encourages student engagement and reinforces the intrinsic value of
the task, in line with the results of the ROSE project (Schreiner &
Sjøberg, 2004) and the studies by Vázquez and Manassero (2005, 2008). Thus, the
incorporation of projects, robotics, and meaningful tasks acts as an activator
of situational interest, especially when STEM activities are linked to real
problems and contexts close to students’ experience (Adanur-Sönmez et al., 2025).
From the Expectancy-Value model (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002), these findings make it possible to interpret that active
methodologies contribute to strengthening interest and perceived utility. However,
this increase in interest is shown to be fundamentally situational and does not
necessarily translate into a sustained vocational orientation. As Ulriksen et
al. (2015) point out, continuity in scientific studies depends on broader
identity trajectories and on the consolidation of self-efficacy. In this sense,
recent research shows that situational interest is activated when activities
combine personal relevance, novelty, and social interaction, elements that are
frequent in project-based and collaborative work methodologies (Guo &
Fryer, 2025).
Along these lines, perceived utility is
revealed as a necessary but insufficient dimension. Students distinguish
between immediate utility and projective utility, with interest and liking
appearing to carry greater weight in academic decision-making, as previous
studies have suggested (Ainley & Ainley, 2011; Regan & DeWitt, 2015).
Perceived cost constitutes another relevant element for understanding the limits
of methodological transformation. Despite the incorporation of active
methodologies, certain disciplines, especially mathematics and physics,
continue to be associated with difficulty and cognitive demand, which
contributes to maintaining dynamics of disengagement, in line with previous
research identifying the perception of difficulty as a central factor in the
rejection of science (Vázquez & Manassero, 2010).
From a gender perspective, the results show that,
although these methodologies generate more participatory environments, they do
not eliminate differences in self-confidence or vocational projection. This
pattern is consistent with the arguments of Wang and Degol (2013), who
underline the influence of subjective value and self-efficacy on
gender-differentiated choices, as well as with research evidencing the
persistence of stereotypes and differentiated processes of identification in
the scientific-technological field (Archer et al., 2013; Vázquez & Manassero,
2010).
Taken together, the findings suggest that
active methodologies contribute to partially transforming the subjective value
attributed to STEM disciplines. However, this transformation is contingent and
is mediated by previous trajectories, identity processes, and cultural
constructions, which limits its impact on the configuration of
scientific-technological vocations.
5. Conclusions and limitations of the
study
The present study provides qualitative evidence
on how students in Secondary Education construct the subjective value of
technological subjects in contexts of active methodologies. The results show
that these methodologies do not replace the traditional model, but rather
configure a model in which theory maintains legitimacy when articulated with
practice.
Within this framework, the combined analysis of
the Expectancy-Value model and classroom experience makes it possible to
understand how active methodologies affect the construction of subjective value
(interest, utility, and cost) in real contexts and from a gender perspective.
These strategies reinforce situational interest and perceived utility, although
their impact on vocational orientation is limited, as it is mediated by
processes of identity construction and perception of competence. In this sense,
the articulation between theory and practice, the organisation of cooperative
work, and students’ self-confidence emerge as key elements in the construction of
learning experiences and in processes of identification with
scientific-technological disciplines. From a gender perspective, the findings
show that, although these methodologies generate more participatory
environments, they do not eliminate inequalities in self-confidence or in
projection towards higher scientific-technological studies.
Finally, it is necessary to point out some
considerations regarding the scope of the study. The research is situated in specific
educational contexts, which defines the scope of the study and allows an
in-depth understanding of the processes analysed. However, future research
could expand the number of cases and educational contexts in order to explore
the transferability of the findings. Along these lines, it would be pertinent
to develop comparative studies and longitudinal designs that make it possible
to analyse the evolution of interest in STEM and its relationship with
methodological experience at different moments and in different educational
contexts.
Contributions
Conceptualization, Author1, Author2;
methodology, Author1 and Author3; software, Author1; supervision, Author1,
Author2, and Author3; validation, Author1, Author2, and Author3; visualisation,
Author1, Author2, and Author3; writing—original draft preparation, Author1;
writing—review and editing, Author1, Author2, and Author3.
Funding
This study forms part
of the project “Hacia un currículum sensible al género
en la formación inicial del profesorado (SIMONE)” funded by the Ministerio de
Ciencia, Innovación and Universidades of the Government of Spain and by FEDER
fund (Ref. PID2021-122206NB-100).
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Adanur-Sönmez, E., Aydın-Ceran,
S., & Koçak, N. (2025). Student
Experiences in Context-Based STEM Instructional Design: An Investigation
Focused on Scientific Creativity and Interest in STEM Career. Education Sciences, 15(9),
1218. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091218
Aguilera Morales, D. &
Perales-Palacios, F.J. (2020). What
Effects Do Didactic Interventions Have on Students’ Attitudes Towards Science?
A Meta-Analysis. Research in Science Education, 50, 573–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9702-2
Ainley, M. & Ainley,
J. (2011). A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in
science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518640
Aragón, L.,
Jiménez-Tenorio, N., Oliva-Martínez, J. M., & Aragón-Méndez, M. M. (2018). La modelización en la enseñanza de las ciencias:
Criterios de demarcación y estudio de caso. Revista Científica, 32(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.14483/23448350.12972
Archer, L. & DeWitt,
J. (2015). Science aspirations and gender identity: Lessons from the ASPIRES
Project. In E. Karoline Henriksen, J. Dillon & J. Ryder (eds.), Understanding
student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp.
89-102). Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong,
B. (2013). Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous: Primary school girls’ and
parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture &
Society, 21(1), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.748676
Barmby, P., Kind, P.
M., & Jones, K. (2008). Examining changing attitudes in secondary school
science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1075–1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701344966
Caamaño, A. (2011). Enseñar Química mediante la contextualización. Alambique
Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 69, 21-34.
Chen, Y., So, W.W.M., Zhu, J. &
Chiu, S.W.K. (2024). STEM
learning opportunities and career aspirations: the interactive effect of
students’ self-concept and perceptions of STEM professionals. International
Journal of STEM Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00466-7
Cleaves, A. (2005). The
formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of
Science Education, 27(4), 471-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323746
Cobreros, L., Galindo, J. &
Raigada, T. (2024). Mujeres en STEM. Desde la educación básica hasta la
carrera laboral. EsadeEcPol
- Center for Economic Policy. https://bit.ly/4d4FwSP
Luo, T., So, W. W. M.,
Wan, Z. H., & Li, W. C. (2021). STEM stereotypes predict students’ STEM
career interest via self-efficacy and outcome expectations. International
Journal of STEM Education, 8(36). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00295-y
Eccles, J. S. et al. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors.
In J. T. Spence (ed.). Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological
and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). Freeman and Company.
Eccles, J. S., &
Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review
of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Ferreira-Gauchía, C., Vilches, A. &
Gil-Pérez, D. (2012). Concepciones acerca de la
naturaleza de la tecnología y de las relaciones Ciencia, Tecnología, Sociedad y
Ambiente en la educación tecnológica. Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de
investigación y experiencias didácticas, 30(2), 197-218. https://raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/254510/391056
Guo, Z. &
Fryer, L.K. (2025). What really
elicits learners’ situational interest in learning activities: a scoping review
of six most commonly researched types of situational interest sources in
educational settings. Current Psychology, 44, 587–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07176-x
Holmegaard, H. T., Ulriksen, L. M., &
Madsen, L. M. (2014). The
Process of Choosing What to Study: A Longitudinal Study of Upper Secondary
Students’ Identity Work When Choosing Higher Education. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 58(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.696212
Justi, R.S. (2007). La enseñanza de ciencias basada en la elaboración de
modelos. Enseñanza de las ciencias, 24(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3798
Master, A., Cheryan,
S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes
undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000061
Marbá Tallada, A. &
Márquez Bargalló, C. (2009). ¿Qué factores influyen en la decisión de estudiar
ciencias?. Enseñanza
de las Ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, num. Extr. (junio), 1305-1309.
https://raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/293961
Osborne, J., Simon, S.,
& Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature
and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9),
1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
Potvin, P., &
Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and
technology at K–12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational
research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
Regan, E. & DeWitt,
J. (2015). Attitudes, interest and factors influencing STEM enrolment
behaviour: An overview of relevant literature. In E. Karoline Henriksen, J.
Dillon & J. Ryder (eds.), Understanding student participation and choice
in science and technology education (pp.63-88). Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4
Rivero García, A., Martín del Pozo,
R., Solís Ramírez, E. & Porlán Ariza, R. (2017). Didáctica de las
ciencias experimentales en educación primaria. Síntesis.
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S.
(2004). Sowing the seeds of
ROSE: Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for
ROSE (The Relevance of
Science Education). University of Oslo.
Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple
Case Study Analysis. The Guilford Press.
Ulriksen, L., Madsen, L.M. & Holmegaard,
H.T. (2015). Why Do Students in STEM
Higher Education Programmes Drop/Opt Out? – Explanations Offered from Research.
In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon & J. Ryder (eds.), Understanding student
participation and choice in science and technology education (pp.203-218). Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4
Vázquez Alonso, A.
& Manassero Mas, M.A. (2005). La
ciencia escolar vista por los estudiantes. Bordón, 57(5), 125-143. https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/BORDON/article/view/40802
Vázquez Alonso, A.
& Manassero Mas, M.A. (2008). El
declive de las actitudes hacia la ciencia de los estudiantes: un indicador
inquietante para la educación científica. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y
Divulgación de las Ciencias, 5(3), 274-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2008.v5.i3.03
Vázquez Alonso, A.
& Manassero Mas, M.A. (2009). La
relevancia de la educación científica: actitudes y valores de los estudiantes
relacionados con la ciencia y la tecnología. Enseñanza de las Ciencias.
Revista de investigación y Experiencias didácticas, 27(1), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3661
Vázquez Alonso, A.
& Manassero Mas, M.A. (2010).
Perfiles actitudinales de la elección de ciencias en secundaria según el sexo y
el tipo de educación. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 9(1),
242-260.
Vílchez González, J.M. & Bravo
Torija, B. (2015). Percepción del profesorado de ciencias de educación primaria
en formación acerca de las etapas y acciones necesarias para realizar una
indagación escolar. Enseñanza de las Ciencias. Revista de investigación y
Experiencias didácticas, 33(1), 185-202. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1529
Wang, M.T. & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using
expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in
STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33, 304-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
Wigfield, A. &
Eccles, J.S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-P