JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 45, NO. 8, PP.

955–970 (2008)

Motivation in High School Science Students: A Comparison of Gender

Differences in Life, Physical, and Earth Science Classes
Shari L. Britner

Department of Teacher Education, Bradley University, 1501 W. Bradley Avenue,

WES 203, Peoria, Illinois 61625

Received 17 February 2007; Accepted 11 October 2007

Abstract: The aims of this study were to examine self-efficacy and other motivation variables among high school
science students (n ¼ 502); to determine the degree to which each of the four hypothesized sources of self-efficacy makes
an independent contribution to students’ science self-efficacy beliefs; to examine possible differences between life,
physical, and Earth science classes; and to investigate patterns of gender differences that may vary among the fields of
science. In Earth science classes, girls earned higher grades and reported stronger science self-efficacy. In life science
classes, girls earned higher grades but did not report stronger self-efficacy, and did report higher science anxiety. In
physical science, there were no gender differences in grades or self-efficacy, but girls again reported higher levels of
science anxiety. For boys across science fields, science self-efficacy significantly predicted course grades and mastery
experiences was the only significant predictor of self-efficacy. For girls, self-efficacy was also the strongest predictor of
science grade across fields. Mastery experiences significantly predicted self-efficacy in Earth science for girls, but social
persuasions, vicarious experiences, and physiological states were better predictors of science self-efficacy in life and
physical science classes. Results support (Bandura, A., 1997) hypothesized sources of self-efficacy, previous research
findings on self-efficacy in the domain of science, and validate the suggestion made by Lau and Roeser (2002) to dis-
aggregate data by science field. ß 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 955–970, 2008
Keywords: biology; earth science; physical science; attitudes; gender/equity; secondary

Concerns about the gender gap in science achievement, science course taking, and careers in science
have been pervasive in science education literature (Baker, 2002; Ivie, Czuiko, & Stowe, 2002). Recent
reports, especially in the popular press, have suggested that this science gender gap is disappearing. However,
a closer examination of data reveals that the decrease in the gender gap varies by the area of science and the
level of educational and career attainment examined.
Women and girls have indeed made strong gains in science achievement, course taking, degrees
earned, and academic positions held. (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2004b; National
Science Foundation [NSF], 2005). Women are enrolling in graduate science and engineering programs in
increasing numbers and overall enrollment by women is increasing by a larger percentage than enrollment
by men (men—3.7%, women—5%) thus increasing the proportion of female science and engineering
graduate students from 36% (1993) to 42% (2003) and making headway in closing the gender gap in
graduate science enrollment (NSF, 2005).
These gains are especially strong in biology (NCES, 2004a). In the late 1980s, women pulled ahead of
men in the percentage of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees conferred in the biological/life sciences with
women earning 60% of Bachelor’s degrees and 58% of Master’s degrees in biology by 2003–2004. In that
same time period, doctoral degrees in biology earned by women increased from 36 to 47% (NCES, 2006).
Note, however, that while women predominate in biology at the Bachelor’s and Master’s level, at the doctoral

Contract grant sponsor: Office of Teaching Excellence and Faculty Development at Bradley University.
Correspondence to: S.L. Britner; E-mail: sbritner@bradley.edu
DOI 10.1002/tea.20249
Published online 24 January 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ß 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

956 BRITNER

level men maintain a slight majority. In academic positions, there are now relatively equal numbers of women
and men at the assistant professor level in the life sciences, but fewer women at the associate and full professor
levels (NSF, 2006).
The situation is different in the physical sciences (NCES, 2004a, 2006). Although the number of women
earning degrees in physical science have increased, the percentage of degrees earned by men remains higher
at all levels. In the late 1980s women earned 30% of Bachelor’s degrees in physical science, rising to 42% in
2004. At the Master’s level, the percentage of degrees earned by women has increased from 25% in the 1980
to 40% in 2004; doctorates increased from 18% to 28% in that period. There are fewer women at all levels of
academic appointments (NSF, 2006). This gender gap in degrees earned and positions held in physical
science is prevalent throughout the world with women’s representation in physics in the United States in the
middle of the range (Ivie et al., 2002).
Progress in diminishing the science gender gap, as well as the differences in fields and levels, is also
evident at the high school level (NCES, 2003). From 1982 to 2000, girls pulled ahead of boys in total numbers
of science courses taken and in the number of biology and chemistry courses taken, although boys continued
to take more physical science classes (physics, Earth science, engineering). Girls also take a higher
proportion of Advanced Placement (AP) exams in biology and environmental science. Gender differences in
the ACT science subscore are now less than one point. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
exams in both 1996 and 2000 indicate that male and female students are achieving at similar levels.
Again, a closer look at the data reveals remaining gender differences, especially at higher levels of
achievement and in the physical sciences (NCES, 2001). In the 1996 NAEP data, although there were few
gender differences in overall scores, there were gender discrepancies in the number of students attaining
proficient levels in those subscales evaluating students’ ‘‘ability to analyze scientific procedures and data’’
(males—53%, females—43%) and to ‘‘integrate specialized scientific information’’ (males—13%,
females—7%). These higher-level skills are crucial to long-term success in science. In the 2000 adminis-
tration of the NAEP, 21% of males achieved at the proficient level while 16% of females achieved at this level
(NCES, 2004a).
More gender differences appear among high school students taking advanced level science courses. The
1996 Advanced Science Study (NCES, 2001) was conducted to examine course-taking and science
knowledge and skills among the best-prepared students, a subset of those taking the NAEP exams. Over 2,400
12th-grade students enrolled in advanced science courses were included in this study (23% of the total NAEP
sample). Among these students, the total number of semesters of science courses taken did not differ by
gender, with about 2/3 of the students reporting having taken seven or more semesters of science. In biology,
again, more female students than male students reported having taken more than 1 year of biology (male—
26%, female—34%). However, the higher number of biology courses taken by girls did not translate into
higher achievement, as males and females achieved comparable scores on the biology assessments of the
NAEP exams.
The achievement difference between biological and physical science fields discussed earlier in relation
to degrees earned is also evident in this subset of advanced high school science students (NCES, 2001).
Although female students in the general population took more chemistry classes than did their male peers,
among the advanced students the pattern changed with more male students reporting more than 1 year of
chemistry (male—18%, female—14%). Enrollment in physics was much lower overall, and again the gender
gap favored male students, who reported taking 1 or more years of physics in higher numbers than did female
students (1 year, male—66%, female—59%; more than 1 year, male—10%, female—6%). This is especially
noteworthy given the observation that ‘‘. . .physics appeared to be a critical course; students who took any
combination of subjects that included physics outperformed their peers who did not take physics as one of
their courses’’ (NCES, 2001, p. 5). There was also an achievement gap as the male students in this group
significantly outperformed female students in physics and chemistry (means, male—181, female—169) on
the NAEP exams.
Gender differences favoring boys are even more apparent in AP exams, with males’ average score higher
than that obtained by females (College Board, 2004). In the six science AP exams offered in 2003 and 2004,
male students scored significantly higher in each one than did female students. This includes biology, in
which female students take a greater number of regular track and advanced courses, and in chemistry, in
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCE MOTIVATION 957

which girls take more regular track science courses. More female students take the biology and environmental
science AP exams, but females have a lower mean score than males.
Although progress has been made, it is important to address the remaining aspects of the gender gap in
science, not only for equity for girls and women, but also because women represent potential reserves of
scientific talent. The full inclusion of these talents is crucial so that science represents and serves a broad
range of perspectives.
Among women and girls who have persevered and succeeded in science-related fields, confidence in
their ability to succeed in science-related tasks is a strong factor (Ivie et al., 2002; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000).
Students’ belief in their ability to succeed in science tasks, courses, or activities, or their science self-efficacy,
influences their choices of science-related activities, the effort they expend on those activities, the
perseverance they show when encountering difficulties, and the ultimate success they experience in science
(Bandura, 1997; Britner & Pajares, 2001, 2006; Kupermintz, 2002; Lau & Roeser, 2002; Zeldin, Britner, &
Pajares, in press; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). This makes self-efficacy a prime focus for science educators who
want to increase accomplishment and engagement in science.
Previous research has established that science self-efficacy is associated with science achievement and
science-related choices across grade levels. At the college level, science self-efficacy predicts achievement
(Andrew, 1998) and persistence in science-related majors and career-choices (Dalgety & Coll, 2006;
Gwilliam & Betz, 2001; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984; Luzzo, Hasper, Albert, Bibby, & Martinelli, 1991;
Schaefers, Epperson, & Nauta, 1997). Among high school students, science self-efficacy is a better predictor
of achievement and engagement with science-related activities than are gender, ethnicity, and parental
background (Kupermintz, 2002; Lau & Roeser, 2002; Lodewyk & Winne, 2005). Among middle school
students (Britner & Pajares, 2001), science self-efficacy predicts science achievement, with girls and White
students having higher science grades and stronger self-efficacy than do boys or African-American students.
Given the significant influence of self-efficacy, information about its antecedents may help science
educators facilitate student progress in science. Bandura (1997) theorized that students form their self-
efficacy beliefs by interpreting information from four sources. The most influential is the interpretation of
previous performance, or mastery experience. Students engage in tasks and activities, interpret the results of
their actions, use these interpretations to develop beliefs about their capability to engage in subsequent tasks
or activities, and make decisions based on the beliefs created. Experiences interpreted as successful generally
raise confidence; experiences interpreted as unsuccessful generally lower it.
Students also form their self-efficacy beliefs through the vicarious experience of observing others
perform tasks. They use this information to evaluate their own likelihood of success at the same or similar
tasks. This source of information is weaker than mastery experience in helping create self-efficacy beliefs, but
when students are uncertain about their own abilities or when they have limited prior experience they become
more sensitive to it.
This is of course supported by a long history of research on the effects of modeling on outcome
expectations and attributions, goals, and motivational behaviors (Schunk, 1999). Models perceived to possess
characteristics similar to the observer are the most effective in increasing self-efficacy in the observer
(Bandura, 1986, 1997; Schunk, 1987). The modeling of sex-role appropriate behaviors also serves to provide
information about the appropriateness of the behavior for the observer (Akamatsu & Thelen, 1974; Brooks &
Betz, 1990).
Social persuasion, the verbal and nonverbal judgments provided by others, is also an important source of
self-efficacy information. Effective persuaders must cultivate students’ beliefs in their capabilities while at
the same time ensuring that the envisioned success is attainable. Social persuasion alone does not produce a
positive sense of self-efficacy, but rather operates with other sources of self-efficacy to affect self-confidence.
Finally, physiological states such as anxiety, stress, arousal, and mood states also provide information
about efficacy beliefs. Students gauge their degree of confidence by their interpretation of the emotional state
they experience as they contemplate or engage in an action. Thus, students construct their self-efficacy beliefs
through the interpretation and integration of information from these four sources.
Consistent with Bandura’s (1986, 1997) theory, researchers have reported significant correlations
ranging from .20 to .78 between the four sources, with mastery experiences typically proving to be the
strongest and most consistent predictor of academic self-efficacy (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Hampton,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
958 BRITNER

1998; Klassen, 2004; Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991; Lent, Lopez, Brown, & Gore, 1996; Matsui, Matsui,
& Ohnishi, 1990, Usher & Pajares, 2006). The other sources of self-efficacy information theorized by
Bandura have proved less consistent as predictors of self-efficacy. Many of these studies have been
conducted in the area of mathematics, with some focused on the role played by mathematics self-efficacy
in predicting science-related course taking and career choices (Lent et al., 1991). In a study of 319 middle
school science students (Britner & Pajares, 2006), significant correlations were found between mastery
experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasions, physiological arousal, and self-efficacy, with only
mastery experiences significantly predicting science self-efficacy.
Evidence for gender differences in the sources of self-efficacy has been inconsistent. Some researchers
have reported stronger vicarious experiences and social persuasions among women than among men
(Anderson & Betz, 2001; Lent et al., 1996). In Grade 6 girls and boys, mastery experiences predicted general
academic self-efficacy, but social persuasions were predictive only for girls and vicarious experiences for
boys (Usher & Pajares, 2006). Others have failed to find significant gender differences in the sources (Lent
et al., 1991; Matsui et al., 1990). In middle school science, mastery experiences were the only significant
predictor of science self-efficacy for both boys and girls (Britner & Pajares, 2006).
The influence of self-efficacy and the relative contributions of the sources may also vary among different
areas of science. Lau and Roeser (2002) have speculated that the lack of gender differences found in their
study on motivational processes, including self-efficacy, in high school science students may have been a
result of data aggregated across science disciplines, and that gender differences between physical science and
life science may have been lost in the common analysis. They recommended differentiating science fields in
future studies for a better look at gender differences in science.
The purposes of the current study were to determine the proportional contributions of the four sources of
self-efficacy to high school students’ science self-efficacy and achievement and to investigate differences in
science self-beliefs between students in life, physical, and Earth science classes.
Methodology
Participants and Setting
Participants were 502 students (233 male, 269 female; 92% White, 4% Hispanic, 3% other) from a
public high school in a small Midwestern city. The school has a free/reduced lunch rate of 16.3%, a drop-out
rate of 5.2%, a mobility rate of 11.4, and 73.5% of their students meet or exceed standards on the state’s
criterion-referenced test. Students represented all four grade levels (9th—31%, 10th—24%, 11th—31%,
12th—13%).
This school was selected because the science program includes courses in biology, chemistry,
physics, Earth science, and environmental science ranging from introductory survey classes to upper level
honors courses. Typical course sequences are as follows: Sequence I (General—26% of students)—Life
Science, Earth Science, Environmental Science; Sequence II (College Bound—55% of students)—Biology,
Chemistry, Physics I, Anatomy/Physiology, or Ecology; Sequence III (Honors—19% of students)—Biology
Honors, Chemistry Honors, Physics I Honors, AP Chemistry, or Anatomy/Physiology. Distribution of the
participating students among the areas of science and honors/AP classes is provided in Table 1.

Table 1
Gender composition in science courses
% of Total % Male/Female % Honors/AP Teacher Gender
Total sample — 46/54 42 (51% M) 1 M, 4 F
Life 40 50/50 15 (71% M) 3F
Physical 33 44/56 41 (42% M) 1 M, 1 F
E/E 27 47/53 N/A 2F

Note. Life science courses—Life Science, Biology, Biology Honors, Anatomy/Physiology. Physical science courses—Chemistry,
Chemistry-Honors, AP Chemistry, Physics I, Physics I Honors. E/E—Earth Science, Ecology, Environmental Science. Teachers in last
column total more than five as some teachers teach in more than one area.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCE MOTIVATION 959

When asked about the school culture as regards gender issues in science, teachers indicated that girls and
boys were treated the same, that girls were encouraged to study science neither more nor less than boys.
Although this would seem unusual, and certainly not reflective of society, boys and girls were represented in
the three areas of science (girls slightly higher in physical and Earth/environmental science) and in the honors
program in fairly similar percentages (Table 1). They also had equal achievement in the science section of the
state’s criterion referenced test taken by all 11th grade students. I did not have access to the number of students
taking and passing the AP tests.
Instruction and assessment in the science department are rigorous and standards are consistent among
the five teachers in the Science Department. All five teachers are Caucasian, four females and one male. Three
of the female teachers are responsible for the life science and Earth/environmental science courses. Physics
classes (and one chemistry class) are taught by a female teacher and the majority of the chemistry classes are
taught by the male teacher.

Procedures
Data collection was completed by the author and three graduate assistants during Fall Semester. Written
parental consent was obtained as required by the school system and students were told that the purpose of the
study was to obtain their opinions and feelings about science class and about themselves as science students.
They were informed that their participation was voluntary and that the results of the survey were confidential
and would not affect their science grade. Student completion of the survey took 20–30 minutes during one
science class period. Ninety percent of the students participated and 95% of those surveys were complete.
Students’ final grades were provided by their science teachers. Procedures were consistent with those used in
previous self-efficacy research (Britner & Pajares, 2001, 2006; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Shell, Colvin, &
Bruning, 1995).

Instrumentation
The Sources of Science Self-Efficacy Scale was adapted from a scale used to measure this construct in
the domain of mathematics (see Lent et al., 1996). It consists of four subscales measuring the effects of
mastery experiences (eight items; sample: ‘‘I got a good grade in science class last semester.’’), vicarious
experiences (five items; sample: ‘‘Many of the adults I most admire are good in science.’’), social persuasions
(eight items; sample: ‘‘My teachers believe I can do well in difficult science courses.’’), and physiological
states (eight items; sample: ‘‘Science makes me feel uncomfortable and nervous.’’). [Note: Physiological
states as a source of self-efficacy as described by Bandura (1986) is congruent with descriptions of math
anxiety; therefore, the original scales used to measure the sources of self-efficacy used the Fennema–
Sherman Math Anxiety Scale (Betz, 1978) to measure physiological states (see Lent et al., 1996). Thus, the
scales in this study for physiological states and science anxiety are identical. Results are listed separately
in some tables to facilitate access for readers interested in science anxiety as well as in the sources
of self-efficacy.]
As did Lent et al. (1996), I conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify the latent constructs
underlying the sources items on each scale. I followed guidelines for implementing factor analysis
recommended by Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999). Specifically, I considered the design
of the study, adequacy of the sample size, and appropriateness of factor analysis and specific techniques used.
I also employed multiple criteria for selecting the number of factors and used the maximum likelihood
method of extraction (Jöreskog & Lawley, 1968) because this is the method believed to produce the best
parameter estimates (Pedhazur, 1982). I used the recommended oblique rotation method, and employed the
scree test (Cattell, 1966) and the interpretability of the rotated factors to help determine the number of
common factors to retain and analyze. Items on each scale loaded on one factor. Loadings for the mastery
experience items ranged from .56 to .85; for the vicarious experience from .49 to .85; for the social
persuasions from .63 to .86; and for the physiological states from .61 to .87. Cronbach’s alpha reliability
indexes for the current study were .87 for mastery, .81 for vicarious, .92 for social persuasions, and .92 for
physiological states.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
960 BRITNER

Science grade self-efficacy was assessed with five items that asked students to provide a rating of their
confidence that they could earn either an A, B, C, or D in their science class (sample: ‘‘How confident are you that
you will get an A?’’) (see Bandura, 1997, for assessment procedures consistent with tenets of self-efficacy
theory). Researchers have reported alpha coefficients ranging from .69 to .85 when academic self-efficacy has
been measured in a similar way. Britner and Pajares (2001) reported .86 for science self-efficacy. Cronbach’s
alpha for the current study was .91.
Science self-concept is students’ perceptions about their science ability and their feelings of self-worth
associated with this ability. It was assessed with the six-item science scale from Marsh’s (1990) Academic
Self Description Questionnaire (ASDQ-1) (sample: ‘‘Science is easy for me.’’). Marsh obtained alpha
coefficients ranging from .88 to .94 on the 13 subject scales in the ASDQ-1, including the science scale.
Britner and Pajares (2001) obtained a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .82. Cronbach’s alpha for the current
study was .89.
Science anxiety is feelings of tension and stress that interfere with the construction of science
knowledge, the development of science skills and abilities, and the use of science knowledge, skills, and
abilities in life and in academic situations (Mallow, 1981; Richardson & Suinn, 1972). The eight-item science
anxiety scale asked students to consider statements about comfort or anxiety with science and to indicate the
degree to which these statements reflected their feelings about science (‘‘Science makes me feel uneasy and
confused.’’). Britner and Pajares (2006) obtained a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .91 using this scale
adapted for middle school science. Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was .92.
Students’ achievement goal orientation, the reasons they have for doing their academic work, have
primarily been described in terms of either task or performance orientations (Urdan, 1997). Task goals
represent a concern with mastering school work and learning for learning’s sake (sample item: ‘‘I like science
assignments that really make me think.’’). Performance goals are conceptualized in terms of an approach or
avoid tendency. Students may hold performance-approach goals, such as wanting to do well to impress
teachers or classmates (sample item: ‘‘I’d like to show my science teacher that I’m smarter than the other
students in my science class.’’), or they may hold performance-avoid goals, such as wanting to do well to
avoid appearing incompetent (sample item: ‘‘I do my science assignments so others in the class won’t think
I’m dumb.’’). Achievement goals were assessed using a scale provided by Middleton and Midgley (1997)
derived from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) (Midgley et al., 1996). Middleton and
Midgley’s scale assessing goals in mathematics was adapted for an earlier study (Pajares, Valiante, & Britner,
2000) to reflect goals in science, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .83 for the task scale, .80 for the
approach scale, and .78 for the avoid scale. Alpha coefficients for the current study were .87 for the task scale,
.82 for the approach scale, and .82 for the avoid scale.
Science achievement was operationalized as students’ end of semester grade in the specific science class
in which they completed the instrument. Grades were provided by the students’ teachers and ranged from
F (0) to A (4).

Data Analysis
MANOVAs were conducted to identify gender differences in the whole sample and in each of the three
subfields. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine whether science self-efficacy predicted
science achievement when other variables found to predict achievement were controlled and the degree to
which each of the hypothesized sources of self-efficacy made an independent contribution to the prediction of
science self-efficacy. Separate analyses were conducted for the total sample, by gender, and for each of the
three subfields which included life science classes (biology, life science, anatomy, and physiology), physical
science classes (physics and chemistry), and Earth/environmental science classes (Earth science, ecology,
environmental science). Regression analyses were supplemented by a regression commonality analysis
(Rowell, 1996) and by obtaining regression structure coefficients (Thompson & Borrello, 1985). Com-
monality analysis provides a uniqueness indicator that can be used to determine the proportion of the
explained variance of a dependent variable associated uniquely with an independent variable. Unlike the beta
coefficients typically reported in multiple regression analyses, structure coefficients, the zero-order correla-
tion between a dependent and an independent variable divided by the multiple correlation, are not suppressed
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCE MOTIVATION 961

or inflated by collinearity between the independent variables. All analyses were conducted using the SAS
system, Version 9 (SAS Institute, Inc., 2005).
Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations are provided in Table 2 for the whole sample by gender.
MANOVA results revealed a significant multivariate effect for gender, Wilks ( lambda ¼ .89, F(10,
483) ¼ 5.59; p < .0001. Girls had higher science grades (78 to 74) than did boys, but girls and boys reported
equal self-efficacy and self-concept. Girls reported higher levels of science anxiety (3.0 to 2.6) than did boys.
When the data were analyzed by science field, this pattern remained in life science classes, but varied in
physical science classes and Earth/environmental science classes (Table 3); in physical science, the only
gender difference found was that girls reported higher levels of science anxiety (3.0 to 2.5) than did boys, and
in Earth and environmental science classes, girls earned higher grades (77 to 71) and reported stronger self-
efficacy (4.6 to 4.1) than did boys.
Regression analyses confirmed the predictive utility of self-efficacy found in previous studies (Britner &
Pajares, 2001; Kupermintz, 2002; Lau & Roeser, 2002), although there was some variation by field (Table 4).
In life science classes, self-efficacy (ß ¼ .343), self-concept (ß ¼ .522), and anxiety (ß ¼ .279) predicted
course grades for boys, but only self-efficacy (ß ¼ .463) and self-concept (ß ¼ .417) significantly predicted
science grades for girls. In physical science classes, self-efficacy (ß ¼ .489), self-concept (ß ¼ .305), and
performance-avoid goal orientation (ß ¼ .204) were significant predictors of course grades for girls, but
only self-efficacy predicted course grades for boys (ß ¼ .409). In Earth and environmental science, only self-
efficacy predicted science grade for both boys (ß ¼ .377) and girls (ß ¼ .640). An examination of structure
coefficients and uniqueness indicators, however, confirms that self-efficacy and self-concept remain the most
reliable predictors of science course grades.
Consistent with the tenets of self-efficacy theory, the hypothesized sources of self-efficacy significantly
correlated with science self-efficacy, with each other, and with students’ grades obtained in science in the full
sample; physiological and affective states, however, were not significantly correlated with course grades for
boys (See Table 2).
Results of the regression analyses predicting science self-efficacy (by science field and gender) are
presented in Table 5. For the life science classes, only mastery experiences significantly predicted self-
efficacy (ß ¼ .659) for boys; for girls, the influence of mastery experiences is not significant, but social
persuasions (ß ¼ .446) and physiological states (ß ¼ .194) significantly predicted self-efficacy. In physical
science classes, again, only mastery experiences significantly predicted self-efficacy (ß ¼ .643) for boys. For
girls, vicarious experiences (ß ¼ .304) and physiological states (ß ¼ .383) predicted science self-efficacy;
however, the low structure coefficient of the vicarious experiences indicates that this may not be a strong
factor. In Earth/environmental science, mastery experiences was the only significant predictor for both boys
(ß ¼ .668) and girls (ß ¼ .674). Results are supported by the structure coefficients and uniqueness indicators.
Discussion
The primary aims of this study were to (1) examine self-efficacy and other motivation variables among
high school students; (2) determine the degree to which each of the four hypothesized sources of self-efficacy
makes an independent contribution to students’ science self-efficacy beliefs; and (3) examine possible
differences in these variables among life, physical, and Earth science classes. Results support Bandura’s
(1997) hypothesized sources of self-efficacy, previous research findings on self-efficacy in the domain of
science, and validate the suggestion made by Lau and Roeser (2002) to disaggregate data by science field.
Although it is beneficial, and often more interesting, to focus on gender differences and differences
between science fields, it should first be noted that there were commonalities across classes. Consistent with
previous research (Britner & Pajares, 2001, 2006; Kupermintz, 2002; Lau & Roeser, 2002), science self-
efficacy was the most consistent predictor of the students’ science grades. The strength of the influence of
mastery experiences on science self-efficacy is similar to the effect previously found in science self-efficacy
(Britner & Pajares, 2006) and in self-efficacy in other academic areas (Hampton, 1998; Lent et al., 1991;
Matsui et al., 1990; Usher & Pajares, 2006). These findings were most consistent across science fields among
the boys in this sample.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 962

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for variables in the study by gender

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Boys Girls
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M SD
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** * ***
1. Mastery 3.7 1.1 — .57 .81 .60 .59 .83 .61 .23 .15 .53 3.6 1.1
2. Vicarious 2.9 1.2 .60*** — .66*** .25*** .30*** .46*** .60*** .28*** .04 .31*** 2.9 1.1
3. Persuasion 3.5 1.2 .78*** .63*** — .46*** .55*** .75*** .62*** .26*** .05 .55*** 3.3 1.2
4. Physiological 2.6a 1.1 .51*** .16* .33*** — .50*** .69*** .36*** .18* .35*** .36*** 3.1b 1.2
BRITNER

5. Self-efficacy 4.4 1.1 .61*** .34*** .45*** .30*** — .68*** .34*** .11 .10 .68*** 4.5 1.1
6. Self-concept 3.8 1.1 .87*** .47*** .67*** .57*** .66*** — .54*** .15* .20** .59*** 3.7 1.1
7. Task 3.6 1.3 .57*** .62*** .55*** .19* .32*** .51*** — .31*** .05 .32*** 3.6 1.1
8. Approach 3.8 1.2 .36*** .31*** .34*** .07 .26*** .32*** .46*** — .47*** .18* 3.8 1.1
9. Avoid 3.0 1.2 .13* .02 .11 .43*** .09 .16* .09 .52*** — .13* 3.1 1.1
10. Course grade 74a 14 .46*** .25*** .39*** .11 .55*** .51*** .25*** .26*** .01 — 78b 12

Note. Means for all variables with the exception of Course Grade reflect the six points of the Likert scale. Course grades are represented as percentages. Gender was coded 0 for females and 1 for males. Group
means for a dependent variable (row) that are subscripted by different letters are statistically different ( < .05). Science anxiety and physiological states scales are both represented on this table by row 4.
*p < .05.
**p < .001.
***p < .0001.
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCE MOTIVATION 963

Table 3
Means for variables in study by field and gender
Life Science Physical Science Earth/Env. Science
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Mastery 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.9 3.4 3.3
Vicarious 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.4 2.6
Persuasion 3.5 3.2 4.0 3.7 2.9 2.9
Physiological 2.7a 3.1b 2.5a 3.0b 2.7 3.0
Self-efficacy 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.8 4.1a 4.6b
Self-concept 3.7 3.6 4.2 4.0 3.6 3.6
Anxiety 2.7a 3.1b 2.5a 3.0b 2.7 3.0
Task 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.8 3.1 3.5
Approach 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.1 3.4 3.6
Avoid 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.2
Course Grade 72a 76b 81 82 71a 77b

Note. Means by gender are adjusted means obtained from MANOVA results. Means for all variables with the exception of Course Grade
reflect the six points of the Likert scale. Course Grades are percentages. Gender was coded 0 for females and 1 for males. Group means for a
dependent variable (row) that are subscripted by different letters are statistically different ( < .05).

There were, however, variations in the attitudes and self-beliefs reported by students among the three fields.
In Earth and environmental science classes, girls have higher course grades and report stronger self-efficacy,
as would be expected to accompany higher achievement. They do not show the stronger science anxiety often
found among girls in science. For both boys and girls in Earth and environmental science, mastery is the only
significant predictor of self-efficacy and self-efficacy is the only significant predictor of course grades, both as
expected from self-efficacy theory and previous research.
In life science and physical science classes, there were more definite gender differences. For boys,
mastery experience was the only significant predictor of self-efficacy across fields and self-efficacy was the
strongest predictor of science course grades in physical and Earth/environmental sciences. For boys in life
science classes, however, self-concept was the strongest predictor of course grades, with self-efficacy also
predicting grades. Science anxiety was also significant for boys, but the extremely low structure coefficient
suggests caution in interpreting this result. These results are consistent with self-efficacy theory (Bandura,
1986, 1997) and previous research findings (Britner & Pajares, 2001, 2006; Kupermintz, 2002; Lau & Roeser,
2002).
In life science, girls earned higher grades than did boys, but their higher level of achievement did not
result in the girls reporting higher levels of mastery experiences, nor did it result in stronger self-efficacy or
self-concept related to science activities. Mastery experiences were not a significant predictor of self-
efficacy for the girls, as they were for boys and as would be predicted by self-efficacy theory (Bandura,
1997). Rather, social persuasions had the strongest effect on girls’ self-efficacy. As discussed earlier, biology
and life science courses and careers have traditionally attracted more girls and women than have other areas
of science, indeed are viewed by some as being more appropriate. It may be for these reasons that social
persuasions played a significant role in the prediction of female students’ self-efficacy in life science classes.
These results are perhaps not surprising interpreted in light of the importance of relationships in the
psychology of girls and women and its applications to science (Gilligan, 1982; Harding, 1986; Keller, 1985;
Miller, 1986). The importance of relationships to their perseverance in science-related fields was a common
theme for the women interviewed by Zeldin and Pajares (2000). The girls in the current study also reported
higher levels of anxiety across domains in spite of their higher grades; this anxiety (physiological and
affective states) is a significant negative contributor to their self-efficacy in life and physical sciences, that is,
girls report higher levels of anxiety related to science report lower self-efficacy and those with lower levels of
anxiety report stronger self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, in turn, significantly predicts science course grades
across domains.
In physical science classes, boys and girls had equal final course grades and reported equal self-efficacy.
Physiological and affective states was the strongest predictor of self-efficacy for the girls in spite of their
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 Table 4
Standardized regression coefficients, structure coefficients, and uniqueness indicators for the prediction of science grade by field and gender
Life Science Physical Science Earth/Env. Science
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
 (SC) U  (SC) U  (SC) U  (SC) U  (SC) U  (SC) U

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

* *** * *** * ***
Self-efficacy .343 (.843) 16% .463 (.937) 16% .409 (.949) 23% .489 (.887) 29% .377 (.889) 22% .640 (.957) 59%
Self-concept .522** (.843) 23% .417* (.891) 7% ns (.711) 8% .305* (.739) 6% ns (.713) 10% ns (.613) 0%
Anxiety .279* (.115) 13% ns (.523) 0% ns (.196) 3% ns (.612) 0% ns (.237) 1% ns (.383) 0%
Task ns (.446) 2% ns (.580) 0% ns (.256) 3% ns (.187) 3% ns (.323) 7% ns (.279) 0%
Approach ns (.440) 0% ns (.210) 0% ns (.143) 0% ns (.217) 4% ns (.408) 10% ns (.264) 4%
Avoid ns (.050) 0% ns (.180) 0% ns (.258) 0% .204* (.340) 6% ns (.158) 1% ns (.006) 6%
R2 .41*** .58*** .36*** .49*** .34*** .40***

Note. Structure coefficients (SC) are in parentheses below beta coefficients. U represents the percentage of the explained variance (R2) in the dependent variable associated uniquely with the independent variable.
ns ¼ not significant.
*p < .05.
**p < .001.
***p < .0001.
 Table 5
Standardized regression coefficients, structure coefficients, and uniqueness indicators for the prediction of science self-efficacy by field and gender
Life Science Physical Science Earth/Env. Science
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
 (SC) U  (SC) U  (SC) U  (SC) U  (SC) U  (SC) U
** ** *** *
Mastery .659 (.982) 29% ns (.877) 0% .643 (.968) 41% .230 (.843) 3% .668 (.985) 41% .674 (.914) 44%
Vicarious ns (.612) 0% ns (.723) 1% ns (.168) 5% .304* (.064) 13% ns (.630) 5% ns (.315) 2%
Persuasion ns (.772) 1% .446* (.959) 11% ns (.714) 0% .240 (.627) 5% ns (.582) 0% ns (.699) 1%
Physiological ns (.571) 0% .194*(.698) 5% ns (.445) 1% .383*(.900) 14% ns (.406) 1% ns (.724) 0%
R2 .33*** .49*** .34*** .45*** .43*** .41***

Note: Structure coefficients (SC) are in parentheses below beta coefficients. U represents the percentage of the explained variance (R2) in the dependent variable associated uniquely with the independent
variable. ns ¼ not significant.
*p < .05.
**p < .001.
***p < .0001.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCE MOTIVATION
965

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

966 BRITNER

earning grades equal to those earned by boys. It is also noteworthy that although social persuasions
significantly predicted self-efficacy in young women in life science, this source was not significant in physical
science classes. Women are represented in physical science fields to a much smaller extent than they are in life
science fields and the models available to young women are more often male. The lack of similar models
combined with the predominance of males in physical sciences may account for these differing results in the
influence of vicarious experiences and social persuasions.
It should be noted that self-concept and performance-avoid goal orientation were also significant
predictors of science course grades for girls in physical science; girls who were concerned about the
appearance of ineptitude in science class earned lower grades and those who were less concerned about this
issue earned higher grades. Although the girls, in fact, earned grades equal to those of boys, it seems that they
are being more strongly influenced by concerns with being perceived as competent and with feelings of
anxiety. These more negative concerns may be a factor in girls’ lack of persistence in science-related courses
and careers.
Physiological states significantly predicted self-efficacy among young women in both life and physical
science, which was not the case in middle school (Britner & Pajares, 2006) or among the male students in this
study; this may indicate a developmental trajectory of increasing effects of gender role stereotyping or a more
demanding level of science instruction. This effect was stronger in physical science classes. Given that
science-related fields have traditionally been considered a male domain, and that these attitudes are slow to
change, gender issues are a continuing concern in science at every level (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). These less
positive emotional responses and attitudes toward science, particularly physical science, persist even when
women and girls perform as well as men and boys and, in fact, often make better grades in science classes.
This should be a continuing focus of science educators and researchers.
As the low numbers of students of color in this student population did not allow for an analysis of the data
by race or ethnicity, caution should be exercised in generalizing these results beyond similar student
populations. Further investigation of variations in attitudes and self-beliefs related to science among a more
diverse student population should be conducted, especially in light of the current low minority representation
in science careers.

Next Steps: Suggestions for Science Educators

In school, teachers work to improve the competence and confidence of the students in their charge.
They can accomplish this by working to improve their students’ emotional states and to correct their
faulty self-beliefs and habits of thinking, improve student’s academic skills and self-regulatory
practices, and alter the school and classroom structures that may work to undermine student success.

(Pajares, 2006, p. 340).

Interpretation of Performance
While one way to promote confidence is to improve skills, this is clearly not the case with the young
women in the current study as their science performance is not lacking. In this case it is perhaps the
interpretation of their performance in science class more than their actual skills to which we should attend. In
discussing the need to focus on students’ interpretations of mastery experiences, Pajares has suggested that
students’ interpretations of perceived failure are important (Pajares, 2006). This is undoubtedly an important
aspect, but it may be that for girls in science it is equally important to help them focus on, and appropriately
interpret, their successes. Although girls’ science achievement may seem obvious to their teachers, it seems
not to be making a significant contribution to their perceptions of previous mastery experiences or to their
self-efficacy beliefs. Helping them to realize that they are competent in science, by acknowledging successful
work and the associated effort, may increase the degree to which their demonstrated ability informs their self-
efficacy; it may serve, as well, to decrease their anxiety and concern with appearing incompetent in science
courses. It is, after all, the interpretation of mastery experiences that leads to a strong and effective sense of
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCE MOTIVATION 967

The Influence of Others

Although the significance of vicarious experiences in predicting self-efficacy for girls in physical
science is moderated by the low structure coefficient, it is well established that modeling is a powerful source
of learning (Schunk, 1987, 1999). It therefore would be beneficial to expose both male and female students to
a variety of models in all of the sciences. Ji, Lapan, and Tate (2002) found that the social-cultural context
played a strong role in students’ career plans in that students expressed higher interest and stronger self-
efficacy for occupations which they perceived to involve a higher percentage of their own gender.
Ivie et al. (2002) suggested that parents play a strong role in developing girls’ ‘‘self-esteem;’’ however,
as they then referred to a ‘‘strong belief in one’s intellectual ability’’ and ‘‘confidence in one’s ability’’ this
seems more a reference to self-efficacy than to self-esteem. Qualitative data from their study strongly support
the importance of social persuasions to a strong and resilient confidence and self-efficacy in women who
pursued a career in physics. Respondents also spoke of the value of vicarious influences, both negative and
positive. Many of them were strongly influenced by family members in science fields and by female
professors and researchers who encouraged them and inspired them. However, a majority felt that the view
held by much of society that physics is inappropriate for women was a significant hurdle which they had to
overcome.
It is wise to remember that social persuasions need not be intentional to be effective and are not limited in
their effect to those to whom they are addressed (Pajares, 2006). A colleague in another department uses the
term ‘‘thinking-man’s mathematics’’ to differentiate higher-lever, creative mathematics from computational
work done at lower levels; while not intended to disparage or discourage anyone, the casual and repeated use
of phrases like this send powerful messages to both boys and girls about who is qualified and expected to study
in these areas. The consistent use of ‘‘he’’ as a pronoun to refer to scientists carries the same sort of message,
as do textbooks and curricula with illustrations and examples primarily of male scientists. These sorts of
vicarious experiences and social messages have powerful effects, both short-term and long-term, on who is
viewed as potentially successful in science- and mathematics-related fields in that they may have strong
effects on what is considered by students to be appropriate behavior for their gender (Akamatsu & Thelen,
1974; Schunk, 1987). Communicating to young women that they can succeed in these fields can have
powerful consequences on their future aspirations. It is likewise important for boys to receive messages that it
is appropriate for girls to study these fields and that it is equally appropriate for boys and men to work in fields
such as biology in which women are more prevalent. As they learn about Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey, they
also need to be aware of the work of Frans de Waal.
Carlone (2004) investigated girls’ experiences in and reactions to a reform-based high school physics
course. Some of the girls embraced the more active learning roles required and did very well. However, some
social aspects of the class structure, teacher perceptions, and emphasis on the difficulty of science, continued
to serve to reinforce more traditional images of who is successful at science.
The need for students, in reform-based science courses, to experience the exploratory and contingent
nature of how science is done is also congruent with the power of coping models (Bandura, 1986; Schunk,
1987). If students are aware of how much of science is trial and error and persistent hard work they may be
more likely to see themselves as scientists than when comparing themselves to a vision of scientists who are
brilliant and successful every time. Thus, it is perhaps not enough to expose young people to appropriate role
models in science; it may also be necessary, in terms of vicarious experiences, for them to observe models of
how science is done.

Emotional Factors and Goal Orientation

Feelings of anxiety associated with science class and a focus on not appearing stupid or inept can sap
emotional and mental energies and convince otherwise capable students that they will not be successful in
science. Teachers should encourage the development of a task goal orientation in their students such that they
are motivated by interest in the material and the field. Task goal orientation is more strongly associated with
success and perseverance than is the performance-avoid goal orientation of students who are motivated by the
fear of appearing incompetent. Discouraging competition and criticism in favor of a more cooperative,
supportive classroom climate will support students in becoming more task oriented as well as providing a
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
968 BRITNER

safer environment for those students who remain affected by science anxiety and a fear of appearing
incompetent in front of teachers and peers.
Self-efficacy beliefs affect academic performance by influencing a number of behavioral and psycho-
logical processes (Bandura, 1997). Students who do not believe that they can succeed in science-related
activities will avoid them if they can and will put forth minimal effort if they cannot. When confronted with
the typical challenges that science involves, they will be more likely to give up and to experience the stresses
and anxieties that help ensure the very negative outcomes that they fear. Alternatively, students who have a
strong belief that they can succeed in science tasks and activities, and that these successes will be rewarded,
will be more likely to select such tasks and activities, work hard to complete them successfully, persevere in
the face of difficulty, and be guided by physiological indexes that promote confidence as they meet obstacles.
In surveys from over 1,000 women physicists (Ivie et al., 2002), 58% indicated that they began considering
the possibility of a career in physics during their high school years; clearly this is an important time in the
development of students’ competence and confidence in their science abilities. The full inclusion of girls and
women alongside boys and men in science endeavors is not only an issue of equity, but also important for the
full inclusion of talents and perspectives on science and its place in society. Science educators who are aware
of the importance of self-constructs and of their own role in facilitating the development of positive attitudes
and beliefs in their students can help to ensure that all students with an interest in science are able to develop
their talents and make a significant contribution.

This research was supported in part by a Research Excellence Grant from the Office of Teaching
Excellence and Faculty Development at Bradley University.

References
Akamatsu, T.J., & Thelen, M.H. (1974). A review of the literature on observer characteristics and
imitation. Developmental Psychology, 10, 38–47.
Anderson, S.L., & Betz, N.E. (2001). Sources of social self-efficacy expectations: Their measurement
and relation to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 98–117.
Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 27, 596–603.
Baker, D. (2002). Editorial: Where is gender and equity in science education? Journal of Research in
Science Education, 39, 659–664.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Betz, N.E. (1978). Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in college students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 25, 441–448.
Britner, S.L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school
science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271–285.
Britner, S.L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 485–499.
Brooks, L., & Betz, N.E. (1990). Utility of expectancy theory in predicting occupational choices in
college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 57–64.
Carlone, H.B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access,
participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 392–414.
Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–
276.
College Board. (2004). National summary report, 2004. Retrieved October 9, 2005 from http:/ /
www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/exgrd_sum/2004.html
Dalgety, J., & Coll, R.K. (2006). The influence of first-year chemistry students’ learning experiences on
their educational choices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 303–328.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCE MOTIVATION 969

Gilligan, G. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Gwilliam, L.R., & Betz, N.E. (2001). Validity of measures of math- and science-related self-efficacy for
African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 261–281.
Hampton, N.Z. (1998). Sources of academic self-efficacy scale: An assessment tool for rehabilitation
counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 41, 260–277.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.
Ivie, R., Czujko, R., & Stowe, K. (2002). Women physicists speak: The 2001 international study of
women in physics. In B.K. Artline & D. Li (Eds.), Women in physics: The IUPAP international conference on
women in physics. Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics.
Ji, P.Y., Lapan, R.T., & Tate, K. (2002). Vocational interests and career efficacy expectations in relation
to occupational sex-typing beliefs for eighth grade students. Journal of Career Development, 31, 143–
154.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Lawley, D.N. (1968). New methods in maximum likelihood factor analysis. British
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 21, 85–96.
Keller, E.F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Klassen, R. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of the efficacy beliefs of South Asian immigrant and
Anglo non-immigrant early adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 731–742.
Kupermintz, H. (2002). Affective and conative factors as aptitude resources in high school science
achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 123–137.
Lau, S., & Roeser, R.W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’
situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8, 139–162.
Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic
achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356–362.
Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., & Bieschke, K.J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to
science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 424–430.
Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., Brown, S.D., & Gore, P.A. (1996). Latent structure of the sources of
mathematics self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 292–308.
Lodewyk, K.R., & Winne, P.H. (2005). Relations among the structure of learning tasks, achievement,
and changes in self-efficacy in secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 3–12.
Luzzo, D.A., Hasper, P., Albert, K.A., Bibby, M.A., & Martinelli, E.A., Jr. (1999). Effects of self-
efficacy-enhancing interventions on the mathematics/science self-efficacy and career interests, goals, and
actions of career undecided college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 233–243.
Mallow, J.V. (1981). Science anxiety: Fear of science and how to overcome it. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
Marsh, H.W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh–Shavelson model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 623–636.
Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms underlying math self-efficacy learning of
college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 225–238.
Middleton, M.J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored
aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., & Anderman, E., et al. (1996). Patterns of
adaptive learning survey (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Leadership and Learning.
Miller, J.B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). Assessing the best: NAEP’s 1996 assessment of
twelfth-graders taking advanced science courses. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The nation’s report card: Science 2000. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2004a). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved October 1,
2005 from http:/ /nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004b). Trends in educational equity of girls & women: 2004.
US Department of Education. Retrieved October 7, 2005 from http:/ /nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005016.pdf.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
970 BRITNER

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The condition of education 2006; Degrees earned by
women. US Department of Education. Retrieved January 20, 2007 from http:/ /nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
2006/pdf/30_2006.pdf.
National Science Foundation. (2005). InfoBrief: August, 2005. Retrieved October 7, 2005 from http:/ /
www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf05317/nsf05317.pdf.
National Science Foundation. (2006). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and
engineering. Table H-22. Retrieved 2/1/07 from http:/ /www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/tabh-22.pdf.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and
parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education, Vol. 5: Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Pajares, F., Britner, S.L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of
middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406–422.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing. The Journal
of Educational Research, 90, 353–360.
Pedhazur, E.J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.).
New York: Harcourt Brace.
Richardson, F.C., & Suinn, R.M. (1972). The Mathematics anxiety rating scale: Psychometric data.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 551–554.
Rowell, R.K. (1996). Partitioning predicted variance into constituent parts: How to conduct regression
commonality analysis. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (Vol. 4, pp. 33–43).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
SAS Institute, Inc. (2005). SAS 9.1.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
Schaefers, K.G., Epperson, D.L., & Nauta, M.M. (1997). Women’s career development: Can
theoretically derived variables predict persistence in engineering majors? Journal of Counseling Psychology,
44, 173–183.
Schunk, D.H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research,
57, 149–174.
Schunk, D.H. (1999). Social-self interaction and achievement behavior. Educational Psychologist, 34,
219–227.
Shell, D.F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R.H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy
mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87, 386–398.
Thompson, B., & Borrello, G.M. (1985). The importance of structure coefficients in regression research.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 203–209.
Urdan, T.C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. Maehr & P.R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 99–142). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Usher, E.L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs of entering
middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 125–141.
Zeldin, A.L., Britner, S.L., & Pajares, F. (in press). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of
successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching.
Zeldin, A.L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical,
scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 215–246.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching