4.1 Article

School counseling practices related to postsecondary STEM participation

期刊

CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cdq.12338

关键词

career planning; equity; high school; school counseling; STEM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the beliefs and practices of high school counselors in STEM academic advisement, postsecondary planning, and career participation. The findings reveal that sociocultural factors influence student preparation for STEM, career planning, and decision-making. The misalignment between students' STEM career goals and academic behaviors is often mediated by academic advisement. The professional STEM knowledge, beliefs, and practices of counselors are influenced by their professional preparation, workplace characteristics, and academic experiences.
This qualitative exploratory cross-case analysis analyzed the beliefs and practices of high school counselors related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) academic advisement, postsecondary planning, and career participation. Interviews were conducted with high school counselors (N = 13) who were purposively sampled to represent a diversity of schools in terms of demographic variables. Findings indicated that high school counselors perceived that (a) sociocultural factors influenced student preparation for STEM, career planning, and decision making; (b) students' STEM-related career goals and academic behaviors were sometimes misaligned, and academic advisement often mediated this tension; and (c) their professional STEM knowledge, beliefs, and practices were influenced by professional preparation, workplace characteristics, and their academic experiences. Implications include the need for early, sustained high school STEM counseling and academic advisement; accessible professional development in STEM preparation and careers to promote multiple pathways and reduce school counselor bias; and encouraging family involvement in STEM career decision making.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据