Impacts of a STEM-Focused Summer Camp on Postsecondary Aspirations for Rural Appalachian High School Students

Abstract

Out-of-school experiences are important opportunities for career and educational development, especially for underserved students. This study explored the experiences of rural Appalachian high school students who attended a STEM-based summer camp and the impacts on their college and STEM attitudes and beliefs. Grounded in Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994), the camp provided hands-on learning experiences, mentorship, and career exploration opportunities with the goal of increasing students’ college-going self-efficacy, science identity, and STEM career interest. Findings indicate that students who attended the summer program experienced an immediate increase in self-efficacy and science identity following the summer camp, as well as a positive increase in STEM career interest over time compared to a matched sample of non-participants. These results highlight the potential of out-of-school STEM programming to support college and career development and extend the longer-term impact of STEM interventions.

Keywords

social cognitive career theory college-going self-efficacy STEM interest rural Appalachia career intervention

For decades, United States employers and the labor force have continued to place a high value on postsecondary education. Individuals with more education after high school are more likely to receive higher wages and experience lower levels of unemployment (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2024). Given these trends, educators, administrators, and legislators have aligned in prioritizing postsecondary readiness to increase the number of high school students applying, attending, and completing postsecondary education degrees and certifications. In turn, the rate of college attainment has steadily increased over time, with 38% of people aged 25 and older holding at least a bachelor’s degree in 2021 compared to only 30% in 2010 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021). Due to rapid technological advances, there is an increasing demand for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) related careers, specifically. Along with the demand for workers, a need exists for advanced job-specific skills, which continues to widen the gap in filling STEM positions (Deming & Noray, 2018). Because of a shortage of these advanced skills, STEM careers tend to be among the highest-paying positions, with the BLS reporting that the national average wage of STEM jobs is nearly double that of non-STEM jobs (Fayer et al., 2017).

Despite the gains in educational attainment and degree completion (NCES, 2021), there continue to be educational disparities in college attendance and graduation rates for underrepresented students, specifically first-generation college students, students from low-income families, and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (ACT Inc., 2019). In 2020, 54% of undergraduates’ parents did not have a bachelor’s degree and 26% of undergraduates’ parents held no postsecondary education at all (RTI International, 2023). Although first-generation college students make up a significant percentage of undergraduate student enrollment, they are less likely to enroll in STEM majors or successfully complete their STEM degrees than continuing-education peers (Bettencourt et al., 2020; Peña et al., 2022; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019). Given the growing demand for a diverse STEM workforce, intentional efforts are needed to expand awareness of STEM careers and postsecondary pathways for students from underrepresented backgrounds. In this manuscript, we explore the impact of a summer camp program for underrepresented high school students on their college-going and STEM beliefs.

Rural Appalachian High School Students

Students from rural Appalachian communities are one subgroup that might benefit from greater support in college and STEM aspirations, as students from this population often face educational barriers to developing STEM identity. These include limited access to broadband internet, which may restrict teacher and student use of technology; fewer opportunities for advanced coursework due to funding and staffing limitations in schools; and different educational values that emphasize community involvement and local opportunities for work (Statti & Torres, 2020). Importantly, the geographical isolation and extractive history of the coal-mining and railroad industry create systemic barriers beyond education that may limit opportunity as well (Statti & Torres, 2020). Rural Appalachians, compared to those from other rural regions broadly, tend to have lower high school completion rates, fewer residents with bachelor’s degrees, and higher unemployment and poverty rates (Appalachian Regional Commission, n.d.). Taken together, these disparities in educational attainment may be attributed to, or further exacerbated by, beliefs related to college-going, or their ability to get into and be successful in college (Gibbons & Borders, 2010).

Further, rural Appalachian residents with bachelor’s degrees are underrepresented in science and engineering (Srygley et al., 2024). Given that family support and expectations for education are well-documented influences on career choice and postsecondary aspirations for this population, the underrepresentation in STEM role models is notable (Agger et al., 2018; Ali & Saunders, 2006; Ault et al., 2024; Statti & Torres, 2020). Specifically, Agger and colleagues’ (2018) investigation of family influence on educational aspirations and postsecondary enrollment indicate that higher educational expectations from parents may relate to increased postsecondary enrollment.

With fewer rural Appalachian adults holding bachelor’s degrees, many of their children may be the first in their families to pursue higher education. Prospective first-generation college students (PFGCS) may be at a disadvantage if they are not exposed to information about the college process; however, this barrier may be mitigated in rural communities through support from their schools, including their teachers and school counselors (King, 2018). In addition to concerns related to information and preparation, rural Appalachian students may also choose to not enroll in postsecondary education because they need to financially support themselves and their families (Irvin et al., 2012). In fact, there was an 18% decrease in FAFSA completion for rural students from 2019 to 2020 (Postsecondary National Policy Institute [PNPI], 2023). Furthermore, data highlights the underrepresentation of rural students in STEM programs, as only 11% of rural students completed STEM degrees within 6 years of high school graduation compared to urban (14%) and suburban students (17%; National Student Clearinghouse [NSC], 2024).

Collectively, these findings suggests that rural Appalachian students may benefit from increased STEM-related career exposure and structured support that builds on their existing strengths. Despite documented challenges in postsecondary exploration, rural Appalachian youth often demonstrate resilience, adaptability, and a strong orientation toward community well-being (Gibbons et al., 2019), which are qualities that can be valuable assets in STEM fields that emphasize teamwork, application, and addressing real-world problems.

STEM-Focused Career Development

A significant body of research suggests that interventions focused on developing STEM awareness and interest can increase self-efficacy (Williams & George-Jackson, 2014), STEM and college persistence (Shortlidge et al., 2024), and a sense of belonging in STEM (Payne et al., 2024), emphasizing the importance of continued efforts to intervene, especially with students from underrepresented backgrounds. In the educational system, educators tend to focus more on technology- and math-related skills to encourage their students to pursue STEM careers (Dare et al., 2021). However, it is recommended that educators take an integrated approach to STEM education, which involves helping students expand their knowledge of STEM fields beyond just math and technology (Sanders, 2012). This might involve introducing students to a wide variety of STEM careers, applying STEM knowledge, and generating interest in STEM (Saw et al., 2018). In addition, current efforts are being made to diversify workers in STEM careers (e.g., Ihrig et al., 2018). Interventions to increase students’ awareness of STEM careers have been used to increase the likelihood that students in underserved communities can obtain STEM employment.

One specific type of intervention is out-of-school programming. These include after-school and summer programs designed to increase STEM knowledge, skills, or attitudes, and often recruit underrepresented middle and high school students (Young et al., 2017). A recent nationwide study of first-year undergraduate students explored the impact of summer STEM programs and found that students who participated were more likely to have STEM career aspirations entering college (Kitchen et al., 2018). These programs range in length and focus, and research provides preliminary evidence that both shorter and longer programs can be effective (Elam et al., 2012; Nugent et al., 2010; Young et al., 2017). Programs that include both academic and social activities tend to be more impactful overall on STEM interest (Young et al., 2017), with shorter programs having a greater impact on STEM attitudes and motivation (Nugent et al., 2010). Beyond increasing knowledge and interest, out-of-school STEM programs may also play an important role in shaping students’ sense of connection and identification with STEM fields.

Kim et al. (2018) describe STEM identity as a combination of a “sense of belonging” and “social acceptance” (p. 591). The researchers argue that STEM identity is an important social identity, shaped by the experience of feeling welcomed and accepted within the community of STEM professionals (Kim et al., 2018). According to Martin-Hansen (2018), supporting students in STEM involves increasing their STEM identity, rather than only generating interest, improving their proficiency in STEM, and helping students connect with STEM mentors. Students who receive access to mentorship, research opportunities, and study support are more likely to persist in STEM majors and continue on to STEM careers (Doerschuk et al., 2016). Still, there are limitations for underrepresented populations that prevent them from receiving these types of support. For instance, research indicates that individuals from underrepresented communities, like rural Appalachia, may lack sufficient mentorship (Atkins et al., 2020), access to safe and inclusive environments (Campbell-Montalvo et al., 2022), or may encounter stereotypes (Starr, 2018). Addressing these barriers may contribute to students’ aspirations for pursuing college and the likelihood of pursuing a STEM field.

Out-of-School Summer Intervention: Camp

As previously noted, out-of-school STEM interventions can take a variety of forms. Our summer camp intervention is guided by the interest and choice model of Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994), which proposes that individuals’ career-related interests and goals are shaped by personal beliefs about their own abilities (self-efficacy), perceived benefits of career-related actions (outcome expectations), and real-world opportunities that facilitate career aspirations (contextual learning experiences). In this study, we apply the SCCT framework to college-going experiences centered around self-efficacy and interest development, providing a more proximal sense of students’ interests and self-efficacy beliefs related to their college-going pursuits. Self-efficacy can be increased by engaging in experiences (performance accomplishments), watching others be successful in the experience (vicarious experiences), receiving positive feedback from supportive others (verbal encouragement), and feeling positive or negative emotions when engaging in the activity (affective states; Bandura, 1997). College-going self-efficacy describes individuals’ beliefs about both attending and persisting in college (e.g., financial considerations, family support, academic preparedness; Gibbons & Borders, 2010). Higher levels of college-going self-efficacy are consistently associated with a greater likelihood of pursuing or performing tasks related to college attendance and success, with outcome expectations also playing an important role in the broader SCCT model (Berbery & O’Brien, 2018; Gibbons & Borders, 2010).

SCCT has been used as a theoretical framework for a wide variety of college and career interventions for high school and college students (Damodar et al., 2024). Many of these interventions focus on group counseling (e.g., Falco & Summers, 2019), classroom curriculum (e.g., Gibbons et al., 2020), multimodal workshops (e.g., McWhirter et al., 2019), and college campus visits (e.g., Glessner et al., 2017). In one study, researchers evaluated the effectiveness of an immersive summer camp in increasing interest in STEM careers and enhancing science self-efficacy by engaging students in conversations with STEM mentors, participating in hands-on STEM activities, and immersing students in the college experience (Deemer & Sharma, 2019).

While many out-of-school STEM interventions have demonstrated positive effects on students’ self-efficacy and interest in science (Deemer & Sharma, 2019; Young et al., 2017), most have focused on broad student populations or only urban minority students. Additionally, the content within the interventions often centers on teaching STEM concepts or technical skills, with less emphasis on how students develop confidence, identity, and aspirations related to STEM and college-going.

In the present study, we discuss a summer camp that was designed to address the unique needs of students from rural Appalachian communities by integrating culturally relevant, health-science projects connected to STEM concepts and local community issues. The camp’s activities were designed to provide performance accomplishments, vicarious learning, and verbal encouragement that could strengthen students’ self-efficacy in their ability to succeed in college and STEM fields. In addition to examining self-efficacy, science identity, and STEM career interest as proximal outcomes, the employment of near-peer mentors from a similar geographical context supports representation and promote vicarious learning. By connecting hands-on STEM exploration activities with opportunities for developing college-going self-efficacy, this study sought to examine a short-term, SCCT-grounded summer camp, specifically designed for rural Appalachian students. This study expands on the previous research on PFGCS aspirations, as well as out-of-school programming, by examining the efficacy of an immersive learning experience. This study’s research questions were as follows: (1) To what extent does a summer STEM camp intervention impact students’ college-going self-efficacy and science identity from pre- to post-intervention? (2) Is this change in college-going self-efficacy sustained in a three-month follow-up after the camp? (3) Do campers demonstrate different changes in college-going self-efficacy and STEM career interest when compared to non-campers? (4) How do students describe their Camp experience and its influence on career options?

Method

This study is part of a multi-year federal grant-funded program aimed at increasing awareness of postsecondary education and STEM fields in rural Appalachian high school students. The larger project provides a multi-week curriculum intervention to ninth and tenth-grade students in four partner high schools in Central and South Central Appalachia during the regular academic calendar. The in-school curriculum is a SCCT-grounded, manualized intervention that includes training of all team members, along with weekly supervision and consultation among team members, curriculum leaders, and project staff to ensure fidelity of delivery. While related to the camp intervention, the in-school curriculum is focused on reducing barriers to career and postsecondary exploration, spanning across diverse postsecondary education options (e.g., two-year college, vocational school, and military). All students from the partner schools who receive the in-school curriculum are invited to participate in the camp intervention; however, the summer camp intervention is not a direct extension of the in-school curriculum, presenting an opportunity to investigate its unique outcomes.

Participants

The participants in this study were 138 students from four high schools in Tennessee. All rising 10th, 11th, and 12th graders at the participating high schools were invited to submit an application to attend camp. To offset any financial barriers to attending camp (e.g., transportation and absence from work), each student was provided with a gift card for attending the 4 days of camp. Students completed a brief online application to express their interest in attending. Due to limited available spots, student applications were reviewed by the grant leadership team and prioritized for acceptance based on (1) students who were first-time camp attendees and (2) students’ narrative descriptions about why they felt the camp experience would be beneficial to their development.

In this study, we examined 81 students who attended the out-of-school Camp intervention over a two-year period (Summer 2023 and Summer 2024) and 57 students who made up a comparison group. The comparison group included students from these same four high schools who did not attend Camp. Of the total participants (N = 138), participants identified as White (N = 117), American Indian (N = 10), Black or African American (N = 11), Pacific Islander (N = 2), and Asian (N = 1), with participants able to select more than one racial identity. Ethnicity was reported separately, with most identifying as non-Hispanic/Latino (N = 114). Over half of students indicated at least one of their parents or caregivers had completed some college (continuing generation, 59%), with about 19% indicating neither parent had attended any schooling after high school (prospective first-generation), and about 22% who did not know about their parents’ educational level (unsure). A full description of the participants by intervention group is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics

Characteristic	Camper (N = 81)		Comparison (N = 57)		Total (N = 138)
Characteristic	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender
Female	50	61.7	37	64.9	87	63.0
Male	22	27.2	19	33.3	41	29.7
Non-binary	3	3.7	0	-	3	2.2
Did not respond	6	7.4	1	1.8	7	5.1
First-generation
Continuing generation	47	58.0	35	61.4	82	59.4
Prospective first-generation	14	17.3	12	21.1	26	18.8
Unsure	20	24.7	10	17.5	30	21.7
Race
American Indian	6	7.4	4	7.0	10	7.2
Asian	1	1.2	0	-	1	0.7
Black/African American	6	7.4	5	8.8	11	8.0
Pacific Islander	2	2.4	0	-	2	1.5
White	62	76.5	55	96.5	117	84.8
Hispanic/Latino
Yes	10	12.3	4	7.0	14	10.1
No	63	77.8	53	93.0	116	84.1

Note. Participants were able to select more than one racial group.

Instrumentation

College-Going Self-Efficacy Scale

The College-Going Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form (CGSES-SF; Hardin et al., 2021) is a 14-item measure for assessing an individual’s perceptions about their ability to complete tasks necessary for postsecondary attendance and success. Participants rate their level of confidence for completing each task using a 4-point Likert scale with 1 indicating “not at all sure” and 4 indicating “very sure.” Example items include “I can choose a good college.” “I can get accepted to a college.” and “I could pick the right things to study in college.” Adapted from a longer instrument measuring the same construct (Gibbons & Borders, 2010), the developers of the CGSES-SF found an internal consistency of α = .92 (Hardin et al., 2021). The scale has been used for Latino middle and high school students (Gonzalez et al., 2013) and rural Appalachian high school students (Rosecrance et al., 2019), showing correlations with related variables, such as math self-efficacy (Rosecrance et al., 2019) and educational barriers (Gonzalez et al., 2013), as would be predicted by SCCT. These studies reported Cronbach’s alphas of .97 (Gonzalez et al., 2013) and .95 (Rosecrance et al., 2019). The scale demonstrated strong internal consistency in the current sample (α = .91).

Science Identity Scale

The Science Identity Scale (SIS; Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018) is a five-item measure that assesses how much a student considers themselves or believes others consider them as a person who is associated with science. The measure includes four items: “I am a science person.” “My family sees me as a science person.” “My friends see me as a science person.” and “My teachers see me as a science person.” Students answer each item on a 4-point scale (1 = NO!, 2 = No, 3 = Yes, 4 = YES!). The fifth item asks students to choose the statement that best fits them between “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) are not for me: I am definitely not a scientific/technological person.” “If I can, I prefer to avoid doing STEM activities, or talking about those themes. I do not consider myself a scientific/technological person.” “I enjoy STEM, and I do have some personal qualities that can be good for a scientific/technological person.” and “I identify myself as a scientific/technological person.” The original scale demonstrated an internal consistency of .84 across a sample of middle and high school students (Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018). The SIS has been adapted for multiple contexts, including measuring math identity in international students (Radišić et al., 2024) and assessing science identity in middle school after-school science clubs (Hill et al., 2024). Prior research has demonstrated construct validity through associations between SIS and theoretically linked SCCT variables, such as career outcome expectations, math self-efficacy, and STEM career interests (Jiang et al., 2025; Kaleva et al., 2023). In the current sample, the scale presented an internal consistency of α = .85.

Math-Science Interest

As part of the larger project, students completed a 4-item Math-Science Interest (MSInt) scale to assess their interest in learning general math, advanced math, general science, and advanced science topics. Responses were averaged to yield an overall math-science interest score that could range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater interest in learning about math and science. In previous research with rural Appalachian high school students (Rosecrance et al., 2019), the measure demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .83) and evidence for construct validity (e.g., students who reported higher levels of STEM career interests also had higher MSInt scores).

STEM Interest and Program Evaluation Survey

Participants completed researcher-developed items to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the overall program. The survey was administered both during the in-school curriculum and at Camp in alignment with the goals of the grant project. The items related to levels of understanding of postsecondary topics (e.g., how to explore financial aid options, how to make goals for the future) and interest in postsecondary pathways (e.g., two-year college, STEM careers). For this study, we utilized the single item “How interested are you in a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) career?” as a measure of STEM career interest. Due to a change in survey format across the time points, responses at baseline and follow-up were collected on a 1 to 5 scale, whereas responses during camp were collected on a 1 to 10 scale. Standardized scores were used to complete analysis across time points. During the Camp evaluation survey, we also asked participants to list up to two careers of interest and describe their overall perceptions of the Camp experience.

Procedures

As part of the larger grant project, the researchers obtained IRB approval through the university for the collection of research and program evaluation data. Each fall, all 9th and 10th grade students who are enrolled in the project’s participating schools completed online surveys which included CGSES-SF and SIS. To reduce participant fatigue and minimize use of class time, students were randomly assigned to complete a subset of related measures, including MSInt. In our analysis, we identify the fall data point prior to Camp as “Baseline” and the first fall following Camp as “Follow-Up.” After students applied to attend the Summer Camp Intervention (“Camp”) and received acceptance, the students and their families attended an information session about Camp where the caregivers provided permission to participate in Camp activities. Students completed paper surveys on the first (Pre-Intervention) and last day of Camp (Post-Intervention) that included the CGSES-SF, the SIS, and the program evaluation survey. All paper surveys were entered into the computer by a grant team member. See Table 2 for a list of measures administered to students across the study.

Table 2.

Measures Administered Across Time

Data point	Time	CGSES-SF	MSInt	SIS	STEM career interest	Camp program evaluation
Baseline (T0)	Collected in school during fall semester (August) prior to Camp attendance	Camper Comparison	Camper Comparison^*	Camper	Camper Comparison
Pre-intervention (T1)	Collected on the first day of Camp (June)	Camper		Camper	Camper
Post-intervention (T2)	Collected on the last day of Camp (June)	Camper		Camper	Camper	Camper
Follow-up (T3)	Collected in school during fall semester (August) after Camp attendance	Camper Comparison	Camper Comparison^*	Camper	Camper Comparison

^*In the Fall surveys, approximately one-half of students completed MSInt due to random assignment of complementary measures.

Camp was held on the campus of a southeastern university for four consecutive days during the summer terms of 2023 and 2024. The Camp facilitators arranged transportation for students (“Campers”) from their local high school to the university. The Campers arrived on campus by 8:30 AM and departed around 6:30 PM each day. Campers were provided breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks daily while attending Camp. Each day of Camp followed a structured program of activities of both academic and applied learning experiences aligned with social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994). To support college-going self-efficacy, students received lectures on college admissions and financial aid and participated in a campus scavenger hunt. To address interest in STEM careers, students engaged in hands-on STEM lab experiences and met with experts across diverse STEM fields (e.g., agriculture, biology, and computer science). Lastly, Campers engaged in a research-based project throughout the week focused on addressing real-world health issues in their local communities to help support students’ science identity or seeing themselves as a “science person” (Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018). The activities and intended outcomes of this intervention are outlined in Table 3.

Table 3.

Camp Components and SCCT Alignment

Camp experience	Intended outcome	Connection to SCCT Model
Campus tour and scavenger hunt	How confident am I that I could navigate a college campus?	College-going self-efficacy (performance accomplishment)
Brain lecture led by the university faculty	How confident am I that I could be successful in a college course?	College-going self-efficacy (performance accomplishment)
Team-building activities with Camp Counselors	How similar am I to other successful college students?	College-going self-efficacy (vicarious learning/positive affective state)
College presentations (Admissions, financial Aid)	What do I need to know in order to attend college?	College-going self-efficacy (verbal encouragement)
Dinner speakers	Do I have what it takes to attend college?	College-going self-efficacy (verbal encouragement)
Health-science issues in My Community Project	How can attending college benefit my community?	Outcome expectations (perceived value in STEM)
Visit to the Agriculture Campus	What is it like to pursue a STEM major?	Science self-efficacy (performance accomplishment) and interest
Visit STEM labs (e.g., materials engineering, anatomy simulation)	What types of research do undergraduate students conduct?	Science self-efficacy (performance accomplishment) and interest
STEM mini-labs (e.g., marshmallow catapult, data science, infant perception)	What types of questions can STEM researchers answer?	Science self-efficacy (performance accomplishment/positive affective state) and interest
Research presentations from peers	What types of research can high school students conduct?	Science self-efficacy (vicarious learning)

Camp counselors were hired as near-peer role models to help facilitate and accompany students during activities on campus. Drawing on Bandura’s theory (1997), near-peer mentors can help to facilitate self-efficacy through vicarious learning and observing others successfully accomplish the task. Counselors consisted of current undergraduate and graduate students from the university, many of whom identified as first-generation college students or from rural communities. Many counselors had participated in the multi-week curriculum intervention during the school year or had a personal interest in supporting first-generation college students. Prior to Camp, counselors completed an orientation focused on culturally affirming and supportive practices for working with rural Appalachian youth, including strategies for building rapport and validating students’ strengths. The orientation also introduced counselors to the goals of Camp, introducing the concepts behind SCCT and emphasizing how activities were designed to promote college-going self-efficacy and interest in STEM.

Each Camper was assigned to a small group led by two university counselors. In their small groups, Campers completed community-building activities, researched their health-science presentations, and debriefed after each of the scheduled experiences. With the support of their counselors, each small group identified a health issue within their community and explored how it could be addressed through STEM careers. Some of the topics that students researched included concerns related to nutrition, chronic lung diseases, mental health, and substance use. For example, one group of Campers discussed the impacts of substance use on their community and proposed that health teachers can develop preventative programming against substance use in schools, while psychologists can implement therapeutic interventions for those struggling with substance use.

Data collected from fall surveys were used as baseline scores in a matched-comparison group design to establish a control group of students who received the larger in-school intervention, but did not attend camp. Matched-comparison group design is a quasi-experimental research design frequently used in educational research settings without randomized control groups. This approach was intended to reduce baseline group differences and partially mitigate threats to internal validity by assuming that both groups were exposed to similar contextual and developmental influences over time. Following procedures by Hanita et al. (2017), each student who attended Camp was matched with a student who did not attend Camp from the same school, grade level, and gender, and who also met as many of these additional criteria as possible, in order: who had a baseline CGSES-SF score within 0.25 z-score of the Camper, was of the same first-generation status, and was within 0.25 z-score of the Camper on math/science interest. When two possible comparison students had z-scores equidistant above and below the Camper’s score, we selected the student with the higher baseline score for the matched comparison. We prioritized matching based on CGSES-SF scores rather than MSInt scores for two reasons. First, while virtually all students completed the CGSES-SF, MSInt scores were missing for approximately one-half of potential comparison students due to random assignment survey branching. Second, according to SCCT (Lent et al., 1994), self-efficacy is a direct outcome of learning experiences, whereas interests are more distal; thus, we expected the learning experiences provided by Camp to have the greater impact on self-efficacy, making it relatively a more important control variable.

Results

Since data were collected across multiple time points, some gaps in the data exist. Across the two camps, 74 students completed both pre- and post-surveys. For the purposes of analysis, the 2023 and 2024 cohorts were combined into a single Camper group. If a student attended Camp more than once, we only utilized the data from their first participation and removed any duplicate cases. For the analyses regarding the sustained impacts of Camp, data were collected during the Fall semester prior to attending Camp (Baseline) and the Fall immediately following Camp (Follow-Up). To ensure equivalence between our matched-comparison groups, we conducted an independent t-test between 57 Campers and 57 comparison students. Students who attended Camp (M = 2.86, SD = .68) were not significantly different from the comparison group (M = 2.85, SD = .65) in CGSES-SF at Baseline, t(112) = .03, p = .66. Given these time gaps and participant attrition associated with longitudinal studies, independent analyses may report differing sample sizes.

Research Question 1: Short-Term Impacts

A paired samples t-test was conducted to determine the effect of Camp on college-going self-efficacy and science identity. The results of the t-test indicate that there was a significant increase in college-going self-efficacy from pre-intervention (M = 2.96, SD = .53) to post-intervention (M = 3.20, SD = .53; t[73] = −4.89, p < .001, d = .44). Additionally, there was a significant increase in science identity between pre-intervention (M = 2.75, SD = .62) to post-intervention (M = 2.90, SD = .65; t[73] = −2.43, p = .02, d = 52). Each of these increases represents a medium effect size where college-going self-efficacy tended to increase by about 44% and science identity increased by 52% of a standard deviation across the duration of Camp.

Research Question 2: Three-Month Follow-Up

A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate whether there were any sustained changes in college-going self-efficacy (N = 51) measured the first day of Camp, immediately following Camp, and approximately 3 months after Camp. The repeated-measures ANOVA indicated a significant time effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .62, F(2, 49) = 14.95, p < .001. Partial eta squared (η² = .38) showed a large effect size. Consistent with this finding, the univariate within-subjects test was also significant, F(2, 100) = 13.51, p < .001, partial η² = .21, indicating meaningful changes in CGSES-SF across time. Post hoc comparisons indicated that there was a significant difference before Camp and immediately following Camp (p < .001), demonstrating the increase in CGSES-SF. However, scores significantly declined from post-intervention to follow-up (p < .001), returning to Baseline levels (p = .90).

A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to examine changes in STEM career interest across the four time points using standardized scores to account for differences in response format. The multivariate test revealed no significant overall effect of time on STEM career interest, Wilks’ Λ = .899, F(3, 31) = 1.16, p = .34, partial η² = .10. Consistent with this finding, the within-subjects test was also non-significant, F(3, 99) = 1.12, p = .34, partial η² = .03. All means and standard deviations for the Camper-specific analyses are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations for Measures of Campers Across Pre-, Post-, and Follow-Up

Measure	BaselineM (SD)	Pre-interventionM (SD)	Post-interventionM (SD)	Follow-UpM (SD)
CGSES-SF	2.86 (.69)	2.96 (.53)	3.20 (.53)^*	2.93 (.56)
SIS	—	2.75 (.62)	2.90 (.65)^*	—
STEM Career int	6.40 (2.75)	8.04 (2.37)^*	7.79 (2.37)	6.93 (2.67)

Note. – Measure not collected at this time point.

^*p < .05 for significant increase from previous time point.

Research Question 3: Comparison Groups

We conducted a mixed repeated-measures ANOVA to assess the differences in CGSES-SF before and after Camp in comparison to the matched-comparison group. We used CGSES-SF from the Fall prior to Camp (Baseline) and CGSES-SF from Fall after the students attended Camp (Follow-Up) as within-subjects factors and the intervention or comparison group as between-subjects factors. The repeated-measures ANOVA did not produce a significant main effect of Time, F(1, 72) = .85, p = .36, partial η² = .01, and there was not a significant Time × Group interaction, F(1, 72) = .13, p = .72, partial η² = .002. These results indicate that CGSES-SF did not change across the academic year for either group.

We conducted a second mixed repeated-measures ANOVA examining differences in STEM career interest from the first Fall to the second Fall. The main effect of Time was not significant, Wilks’ Lambda = .99, F(1, 67) = .53, p = .47, partial η² = .01, indicating that STEM interest did not change significantly across the year. However, the Time × Group interaction was significant, Wilks’ Lambda = .93, F(1,67) = 4.74, p = .03, partial η² = .07. Campers demonstrated growth in STEM career interest from baseline (M = 3.32) to 1 year follow-up (M = 3.95), while non-Campers showed a slight decline from baseline (M = 3.07) to follow-up (M = 2.94). Means and standard deviations for the third research question are provided in Table 5.

Table 5.

Means and Standard Deviations for Matched-Comparison ANOVA

Measure	Baseline	Follow-Up
CGSES-SF
Camper (N = 41)	2.87 (.69)	2.96 (.54)
Comparison (N = 33)	2.84 (.73)	2.88 (.79)
STEM Career interest
Camper (N = 37)	3.32 (1.27)	3.95 (1.09)
Comparison (N = 32)	3.07 (1.49)	2.94 (1.39)

Note. Raw means and standard deviations are presented for descriptive purposes. Analyses involving STEM career interest were conducted using standardized scores to account for differences in response scale format across time points.

Research Question 4: Camper Perceptions

In the post-survey, Campers were asked to list up to two career choices they wanted to pursue. Of the 124 careers they listed, 96 were STEM-related. Students also indicated how much learning they experienced from Camp activities. Three-quarters of participants felt that Camp helped them learn about different types of science careers and more than half reported learning a lot about how to apply to college and what to do in high school to better prepare for college.

Participants also completed questions about their overall experience with Camp and their perceptions of how Camp influenced their postsecondary and STEM beliefs. Over the two years, 92.5% of Campers reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their camp experience. Their favorite and most interesting activities included visits to the STEM labs and the lecture about the brain. When asked about the most surprising thing they learned during Camp, responses varied, with the most common responses focusing on STEM careers being more possible and college being more affordable than they thought. Some example quotes include “Science is just learning and trying new things,” “The most unexpected thing was understanding all the different careers in STEMM,” “I knew there were specialty fields but I was surprised by how many there were and getting to see some of the research opportunities,” and “That there are lots of scholarships.”

Discussion

This study examined the effectiveness of a week-long out-of-school intervention grounded in Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994) for high school students from rural Appalachia. Students participated in an immersive summer camp focused on increasing self-efficacy and interest in attending college and pursuing STEM careers. The mixed results indicate promise for a short-term social cognitive career intervention for high school students while opening further discussion about the long-term impacts.

A primary goal of this study was to assess the impacts of a week-long STEM camp on STEM and college aspirations, and our findings supported the immediate increases in students’ college-going self-efficacy and science identity following their camp experiences. Given the brief nature of the camp, it is unlikely that this increase was due to maturation or factors unrelated to the camp, suggesting that a short-term out-of-school STEM program can positively impact attitudes and beliefs for underrepresented students. Given that the goal of Camp is to encourage more STEM representation for students from Appalachia, this outcome is important.

This study also extends prior research on STEM camps. Whereas many enrichment programs focus primarily on laboratory skills or academic content (e.g., Young et al., 2017), our intervention intentionally integrated college-going self-efficacy, financial aid knowledge, and near-peer mentoring, elements that are rarely addressed in tandem within STEM camp interventions. Further, the camp emphasized health-related STEM careers tied to students’ rural communities, offering real-world relevance that aligns with SCCT’s focus on contextualized learning experiences. Finally, by including a matched-comparison group and a follow-up assessment, this study contributes stronger evidence regarding the persistence and limitations of short-term STEM interventions for underrepresented youth.

Our summer camp followed best practices that may have impacted its success. As Kitchen et al. (2018) noted, the odds of ending high school with STEM aspirations significantly increase when students participate in STEM summer programs and increase even more so when the program provides real-life relevance. Our program specifically focuses on researching STEM careers that address a health issue in the students’ local communities, creating real-life relevance for the importance of entering the STEM field. Similarly, Young et al. (2017) highlighted the positive impact of summer programs that include both academic and social activities. Our camp intentionally included academic enrichment through hands-on learning experiences and college information sessions as well as social engagement with near-peer role models and other rural Appalachian high school students.

We were encouraged to see the increase in STEM career interest for our campers over time compared to the non-campers. Given that the two groups differed at baseline, our Campers, with their initial higher interest, might have shown an increased interest over time even without the Camp intervention. However, prior research indicates that high school students’ STEM aspirations may decline over time, particularly for STEM-underrepresented groups (Saw et al., 2018). Since STEM career interest increased for our intervention group but not for the comparison group, we feel optimistic that the Camp experience influenced the observed changes in interest. Since an increase in STEM awareness and interest can have positive impacts on college success in STEM fields (Payne et al., 2024; Shortlidge et al., 2024; Williams & George-Jackson, 2014), interventions such as ours can help to supplement the important work of math and science teachers who facilitate academic skill development in STEM. With diligent efforts being made to diversify STEM fields (Ihrig et al., 2018), intentional programming can help to increase the representation of underrepresented students (e.g, racial minority groups, first-generation college students) in various STEM majors and professions.

The lack of long-term sustainability of the other attitudes and beliefs is disappointing but not necessarily surprising. We know that rural Appalachian high school students, like other underrepresented groups, face a multitude of college-going and STEM career barriers. Challenges include higher poverty rates, a lack of college-educated role models, and fewer residents with STEM careers (Srygley et al., 2024). Even prolonged summer interventions struggle to impact career and college beliefs (e.g., Elam et al., 2012; Saw et al., 2019). It is possible that ongoing programming, including programming that occurs during the school year, may be needed to see the long-term impacts of a one-week summer intervention. Additionally, the students’ reports of positive satisfaction with the overall programming and the exposure to new STEM careers may lead them to engage in additional career and college development opportunities in the future.

Limitations and Future Directions

As with most studies, our research project had several limitations to note. First, because this was not a true randomized controlled experiment with students assigned by chance to participate or not participate in the camp intervention, we cannot definitively conclude that Camp itself caused short-term increases in self-efficacy and science identity or longer-term changes in STEM career interest. This limitation is partially mitigated by the brief nature of the intervention and the use of a closely matched comparison group; however, the approximately year-long interval between baseline and follow-up assessments introduces potential threats to internal validity, where unmeasured factors may have influenced outcomes independent of the camp experience. Randomly assigning students not to participate in this kind of enrichment activity has ethical challenges; however, future researchers may attempt to utilize true waitlist control groups to test hypotheses about the effects of these programs more rigorously.

Relatedly, our participants self-selected to apply to and attend our summer camp, indicating possible increased interest in postsecondary education or STEM careers. Students have various reasons for attending camp, but it is likely that campers had more academic and career motivation than their peers who chose not to participate in our camp. Although our closely matched comparison sample still allows us to examine the longer-term effects on science identity, it is unknown whether camp would have had the same short-term effects on a sample with differing motivations. Also, the response scale used to assess STEM career interest differed across time points due to a procedural inconsistency. Although standardized scores were used to mitigate potential scale-related bias in the analyses, future studies should prioritize consistent instrumentation to allow for more direct comparisons over time.

In addition, our participants were all from one of four partner high schools in Tennessee, so their experiences may differ from other rural Appalachian students outside of our grant partnership schools. It would be helpful for future research to assess the utility of our summer camp program with students across Appalachian regions (i.e., Northern or North Central). Also, although rural Appalachia has cultural similarities to rural communities in general, Appalachia is considered a unique subculture with its own traditions and values. We cannot assume that our camp would have the same outcomes with students from non-Appalachian rural communities. Lastly, we were unable to collect full demographic data across all time points which limited our ability to interpret differences across demographic groups (e.g., first-generation status and gender). Future research could examine how these short-term out-of-school interventions are effective across subgroup populations.

Implications for Research and Practice

Out-of-school programming is a useful and supportive practice for encouraging postsecondary education and career exploration. Research demonstrates the impact of these types of programs, but less is known about which practices are most effective. Future studies can explore the specific components of a summer program, such as that in the present study, which will have the biggest impact on college-going and STEM beliefs and attitudes. For example, it may be that hearing about college admissions is a vital component of this type of program, or perhaps simply spending time on a college campus is most helpful. Although our students reported the camp activities they most enjoyed and what they learned from those activities, we did not assess the extent to which each specific activity contributed to their learning.

Furthermore, our camp is grounded in SCCT (Lent et al., 1994), but we only collected data on college-going self-efficacy, STEM identity, and STEM career interest during our program. It is possible that other SCCT variables, such as career outcome expectations or perceived barriers, were impacted by the camp experience, and future research could explore these beliefs. Although we focused on educational rather than occupational outcomes, future longitudinal research could examine how college-going self-efficacy and interests later translate into career outcome expectations and perceptions of career barriers. Relatedly, researchers could investigate how a camp grounded in a different career theory may contribute differently to aspects of career development for underserved students.

For those who are considering designing similar programs, we recommend identifying underserved groups within the local community and collaborating with within-group partners to offer programming tailored to their career development needs. Engaging with community members early in the process, such as school counselors, caregivers, and students, can help ensure that the programming is culturally relevant and accessible. The process of developing long-standing partnerships with schools and local organizations can be challenging due to the time commitment and logistical circumstances, but these relationships are integral to the sustainability of programming and its lasting impact on participants. Further, these partnerships can aid in identifying solutions for logistical challenges, such as transportation and financial considerations, to make the program more inclusive and equitable for all participants to attend.

Additionally, incorporating information about STEM careers may help address the critical need for job growth in these fields (e.g., Doerschuk et al., 2016). We specifically sought to include STEM-related activities that were both interactive and informative, such as lab visits and community projects, to not only deepen curiosity and interest but also to encourage participants to envision themselves in STEM careers. Moreover, STEM-specific activities were meant to help participants learn more about the college-going process by exposing them to potential STEM careers and information about how to pursue those paths through education and training. Our program intentionally included near-peer role models and presentations by speakers about relevant college planning topics (e.g., financial aid and study skills) to normalize the college experience and provide tangible information about overcoming potential barriers to college. By incorporating these activities into the program, we hoped to encourage students to view higher education and pursuing STEM careers as attainable goals for their futures.

Conclusion

Rural Appalachian students face a multitude of real and perceived barriers that can contribute to their educational interests and pursuits. Thus, this study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a dedicated out-of-school STEM intervention for rural Appalachian high school students. Grounded in social cognitive career theory, our intervention aimed to increase the college-going self-efficacy, STEM identity, and STEM career interests of this population. Our analysis found mixed, yet promising, results regarding the short and long-term impacts of immersive out-of-school interventions on underserved communities. These findings emphasize the importance of developing intentional programming that addresses the unique needs of the student participants while opening up future discussions about the need for varied programming to support the development of long-term career aspirations.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Haley R. Ault

Melinda M. Gibbons

Erin E. Hardin

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: National Institutes of Health, Science Education Partnership Award (R25GM129177).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Haley R. Ault is an Assistant Professor of Counselor Education and Practice at Georgia State University. She earned a PhD in counselor education and supervision from the University of Tennessee. Her research focuses on promoting effectiveness and equity in counseling practice through promoting school counselor leadership identity and advocacy, career development and postsecondary outcomes for students, and assessment practices in counselor education. In her free time, she enjoys reality television, being outdoors, and spending time with her goldendoodle.

Katie Cook is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Emory & Henry University in Southwest Virginia. She received her PhD in counseling psychology from the University of Tennessee. Katie’s research focuses on examining the intersection between work, mental health, and social change to promote access to meaningful and sustainable employment, particularly among underserved populations. In her free time, she enjoys spending time with family and friends, cooking, and reading.

Melinda M. Gibbons is a Professor and Academic Unit Director of Counselor Education in the Department of Counseling, Human Development, and Family Science. She received her PhD in Counseling and Counselor Education from The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her research interests focus on career and educational development for underserved populations, including rural students, first-generation college students, and students with disabilities. Dr. Gibbons has been awarded over $15 million in grant funding for engaged scholarship related to this research agenda. Currently, she serves as PI for a five-year NIH-SEPA grant, PiPES3, which provides postsecondary and STEM awareness programming for rural Appalachian high school students. In her free time, she enjoys spending time with her family and puppy, reading science fiction and mystery novels, and baking.

Erin E. Hardin is Professor and interim department head in the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She received her PhD in counseling psychology from The Ohio State University. Her research has focused on cultural differences in the self and understanding individuals’ career development in their unique cultural contexts. Most recently, her work has examined the recruitment and retention of underrepresented individuals in science, technology, engineering, math, and medical science, with particular focus on individuals from rural Appalachia. Her hobbies include cooking, playing poker, and spending time with family.

Brittney H. Carneal is a current Counselor Education doctoral student at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She received her M.Ed. from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Prior to returning to graduate school, she worked as a Professional School Counselor in Tennessee and Florida. Her current research interests include strengthening workforce development for school counselors, such as recruiting and retaining diverse students in graduate preparation programs and developing role-specific training for school counselors serving on school threat assessment teams. Her hobbies include being in nature and collecting cool rocks, spending time with friends and family, and being the most fun aunt to all of her nieces and nephews.

References

ACT Inc . (2019). Condition of college and career readiness 2019. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/secured/documents/cccr-2019/National-CCCR-2019.pdf

Agger

Meece

Byun

S. Y.

(2018). The influences of family and place on rural adolescents’ educational aspirations and post-secondary enrollment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(12), 2554–2568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0893-7

Ali

S. R.

Saunders

J. L.

(2006). College expectations of rural Appalachian youth: An exploration of social cognitive career theory factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 55(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00003.x

Atkins

Dougan

B. M.

Dromgold-Sermen

M. S.

Potter

Sathy

Panter

A. T.

(2020). “Looking at myself in the future”: How mentoring shapes scientific identity for STEM students from underrepresented groups. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00242-3

Ault

H. R.

Sexton

Gibbons

M. M.

Wynn

M. K.

Lange

(2024). Career and college readiness programming of rural Appalachian school counselors: A consensual qualitative research study. Professional School Counseling, 28(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X231225219

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Berbery

M. L.

O’Brien

K. M.

(2018). Going to college? Latina/Latino high school students’ college-going self-efficacy and educational goals. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717695587

Bettencourt

G. M.

Manly

C. A.

Kimball

Wells

R. S.

(2020). STEM degree completion and first-generation college students: A cumulative disadvantage approach to the outcomes gap. The Review of Higher Education, 43(3), 753–779. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2020.0006

Campbell-Montalvo

Cooke

Smith

C. A.

Hughes Miller

Wao

Puccia

Mayberry

Skvoretz

(2022). “Now i’m not afraid”: The influence of identity-focused STEM professional organizations on the persistence of sexual and gender minority undergraduates in STEM. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 780331. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.780331

10.

Damodar

Shetty

Dsouza

M. P.

Prakash

Gudi

(2024). Crafting careers through theory-driven interventions: A scoping review of the utility of social cognitive career theory and career maturity inventory. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 29(1), Article 2308081. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2024.2308081

11.

Dare

E. A.

Keratithamkul

Hiwatig

B. M.

(2021). Beyond content: The role of STEM disciplines, real-world problems, 21st century skills, and STEM careers within science teachers’ conceptions of integrated STEM education. Education Sciences, 11(11), 737. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110737

12.

Deemer

E. D.

Sharma

(2019). Situational interest and scientific self-efficacy: Influence of an energy science career intervention. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12179

13.

Deming

D. J.

Noray

K. L.

(2018). STEM careers and technological change (Vol. 24, No. 25065, pp. 1–67). National Bureau of Economic Research.

14.

Doerschuk

Bahrim

Daniel

Kruger

Mann

Martin

(2016). Closing the gaps and filling the STEM pipeline: A multidisciplinary approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9622-8

15.

Elam

M. E.

Donham

B. L.

Solomon

S. R.

(2012). An engineering summer program for underrepresented students from rural school districts. Journal of STEM Education, 13(2), 35–44. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1619.

16.

Falco

L. D.

Summers

J. J.

(2019). Improving career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-efficacy in high school girls: Evaluation of an intervention. Journal of Career Development, 46(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317721651

17.

Fayer

Lacey

Watson

(2017). STEM occupations: Past, present, and future. Spotlight on Statistics, 1, 1–35.

18.

Gibbons

M. M.

Borders

L. D.

(2010). Prospective first-generation college students: A social-cognitive perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 58(3), 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2010.tb00186.x

19.

Gibbons

M. M.

Brown

E. C.

Daniels

Rosecrance

Hardin

E. E.

Farrell

(2019). Building on strengths while addressing barriers: Career interventions in rural Appalachian communities. Journal of Career Development, 46(6), 637–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319827652

20.

Gibbons

M. M.

Hardin

E. E.

Taylor

A. L.

Brown

Graham

(2020). Evaluation of an SCCT-based intervention to increase postsecondary awareness in rural Appalachian youth. Journal of Career Development, 47(4), 424–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319832972

21.

Glessner

Rockinson-Szapkiw

A. J.

Lopez

M. L.

(2017). “Yes, I Can”: Testing an intervention to increase middle school students’ college and career self-efficacy. The Career Development Quarterly, 65(4), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12110

22.

Gonzalez

L. M.

Stein

G. L.

Huq

(2013). The influence of cultural identity and perceived barriers on college-going beliefs and aspirations of Latino youth in emerging immigrant communities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986312463002

23.

Hanita

Ansel

Shakman

(2017). Matched-comparison group design: An evaluation brief for educational stakeholders. Education Development Center. https://www.edc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/matched_comparison_group_design.pdf

24.

Hardin

E. E.

Gibbons

M. M.

Cook

K. D.

Sexton

Bagwell

(2021). Development and validation of a short form of the College-Going Self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(2), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072720968241

25.

Hill

P. W.

Kelly

G. M.

McQuillan

Ledesma

Melson

Gauthier

G. R.

(2024). Exploring the associations of afterschool science participation and friendships with science identities. Research in Science Education, 54(6), 1155–1172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10173-6

26.

Ihrig

L. M.

Lane

Mahatmya

Assouline

S. G.

(2018). STEM excellence and leadership program: Increasing the level of STEM challenge and engagement for high-achieving students in economically disadvantaged rural communities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217745158

27.

Irvin

M. J.

Byun

Meece

J. L.

Farmer

T. W.

Hutchins

B. C.

(2012). Educational barriers of rural youth: Relation of individual and contextual difference variables. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711420105

28.

Jiang

Tang

Tan

Wei

(2025). STEM identity and STEM career intention: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 12(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00578-8

29.

Kaleva

Celik

Nogueiras

Pursiainen

Muukkonen

(2023). Examining the predictors of STEM career interest among upper secondary students in Finland. Educational Research and Evaluation, 28(1–3), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2022.2161579

30.

Kim

A. Y.

Sinatra

G. M.

Seyranian

(2018). Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 589–625. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318779957

31.

King

S. B.

(2018). Increasing college-going rate, parent involvement, and community participation in rural communities. The Rural Educator, 33(2), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v33i2.415

32.

Kitchen

J. A.

Sonnert

Sadler

(2018). The impact of college- and university-run high school summer programs on students’ end of high school STEM career aspirations. Science Education, 102(3), 574–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21332

33.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

34.

Martin-Hansen

(2018). Examining ways to meaningfully support students in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0150-3

35.

McWhirter

E. H.

Rojas-Araúz

B. O.

Ortega

Combs

Cendejas

McWhirter

B. T.

(2019). ALAS: An intervention to promote career development among Latina/o immigrant high school students. Journal of Career Development, 46(6), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319828543

36.

National Center for Education Statistics . (2021). Digest of education statistics. Table 104.10. Rates of high school completion and bachelor's degree attainment among persons age 25 and over, by race/ethnicity and sex: Selected years, 1910 through 2021. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_104.10.asp

37.

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center . (2024). High school benchmarks. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. https://nscresearchcenter.org/high-school-benchmarks/

38.

Nugent

Barker

Grandgenett

Adamchuk

V. I.

(2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557

39.

Payne

M. R.

LaDue

N. D.

Dugas

Winitkun

Schmidt

(2024). “I feel listened to and heard”: How social support fosters a sense of belonging for low‐income STEM majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching .

40.

Peña

Ruedas-Gracia

Cohen

J. R.

Tran

Stratton

M. B.

(2022). Ten simple rules for successfully supporting first-generation/low-income (FLI) students in STEM. PLOS Computational Biology, 18(10), Article e1010499. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010490

41.

Postsecondary National Policy Institute . (2023). Rural students in higher education. Postsecondary National Policy Institute. https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/RuralStudents_Mar23.pdf

42.

Radišić

Krstić

Blažanin

Mićić

Baucal

Peixoto

Schukajlow

(2024). Am I a math person? Linking math identity with students’ motivation for mathematics and achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(2), 1513–1536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00811-y

43.

Riegle-Crumb

King

Irizarry

(2019). Does STEM stand out? Examining racial/ethnic gaps in persistence across postsecondary fields. Educational Researcher, 48(3), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x19831006

44.

Rosecrance

P. H.

Graham

Manring

Cook

K. D.

Hardin

E. E.

Gibbons

M. M.

(2019). Rural Appalachian high school students’ college-going and STEMM perceptions. Career Development Quarterly, 67(4), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12202

45.

RTI International . (2023). First-generation college students in 2020: Demographic characteristics and postsecondary enrollment: FirstGen Forward. https://firstgen.naspa.org/files/dmfile/15405_NASPA_FactSheet-01.pdf

46.

Sanders

M. E.

(2012). Integrative stem education as “best practice.”. In Middleton

(Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design, & engineering education (2, pp. 103–117): Griffith Institute for Educational Research.

47.

Saw

Chang

C.-N.

Chan

H.-Y.

(2018). Cross-sectional and longitudinal disparities in STEM career aspirations at the intersection of gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Educational Researcher, 47(8), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18787818

48.

Saw

G. K.

Swagerty

Brewington

Change

C. N.

Culbertson

(2019). Out-of-school time STEM program: Students’ attitudes toward and career interests in mathematics and science. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 8(2), 356–362. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i2.18702

49.

Shortlidge

E. E.

Gray

M. J.

Estes

Goodwin

E. C.

(2024). The value of support: STEM intervention programs impact student persistence and belonging. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(2), ar23. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.23-04-0059

50.

Srygley

Khairunnisa

Elliott

(2024). The Appalachian region: A data overview from the 2018-2022 American community survey chartbook. Appalachian regional Commission. https://www.arc.gov/about-the-appalachian-region/the-chartbook/

51.

Starr

C. R.

(2018). “I’m not a science nerd!” STEM stereotypes, identity, and motivation among undergraduate women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(4), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318793848

52.

Statti

Torres

(2020). The forgotten minority: Exploring deficiencies in access to education and technology in rural America. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2020.1745608

53.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics . (2024). Education pays, 2023. Career Outlook. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2024/data-on-display/education-pays.htm

54.

Vincent-Ruz

Schunn

C. D.

(2018). The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0140-5

55.

Williams

M. M.

George-Jackson

(2014). Using and doing science: Gender, self-efficacy, and science identity of undergraduate students in STEM. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(2), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2014004477

56.

Young

J. R.

Ortiz

N. A.

Young

J. L.

(2017). STEMulating interest: A meta-analysis of the effects of out-of-school time on student STEM interest. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.61149