新高考改革背景下高中科学教育能否影响学生高考科目选择——基于STEM管道理论的实证研究

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.03.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

高考科目选择不仅影响学生的学业发展方向，还直接关系到我国科技人才的专业分布与未来储备。基于STEM管道理论，通过对全国七省市普通中学科学教育调查数据分析发现：活动课程和科技竞赛能促进学生选择物理科目组合，而统计调查则起到阻碍作用。主题班会和课外活动对学生选择物理科目组合的影响不明显。活动课程通过增加早期接触、职业意识和资源获取，提升学生选择物理科目组合的可能性。科技竞赛则主要通过增强早期接触和职业意识，增加学生选择物理科目组合的机会。相反，统计调查主要通过削弱职业意识和资源获取，降低学生选择物理科目组合的概率，且这种阻碍作用在县域高中尤为明显，而在地市级高中则略有促进作用。建议动态调整高中科学教育的实施方案，强化科学教育的专业性和个性化指导，增加科学教育资源投入，促进地区间科学教育的均衡发展。

关键词: 高中科学教育, 高考科目选择, 地市级高中, 县域高中, STEM管道理论

Abstract:

Subject selection for the college entrance examination is one of the core elements of the new college entrance examination reform. Most of the existing studies on subject selection for the college entrance examination focus on individual and family background influences, neglecting the consideration of science education at the school level. Based on the STEM pipeline theory and structural equation modeling, this study, after analyzing the survey data on science education in general secondary schools in seven provinces and cities across China, found that activity courses and science and technology competitions had a facilitating effect on students’ choice of physics combination subjects, while statistical surveys showed a hindering effect; however, the effects of theme class meetings and extracurricular activities on students’ subject choice were not obvious; at the same time, the activity courses had a significant impact on students’ choice of subjects by increasing their knowledge of science-related content, career awareness, and access to resources, thereby facilitating students’ choice of physics subject combinations. Science and technology competitions, on the other hand, increased the likelihood of students choosing physics subject combinations by increasing early exposure and career awareness. In contrast, statistical surveys decreased the likelihood of choosing a physics subject combination by decreasing the level of career awareness and access to resources. Furthermore, the negative impacts of statistical surveys were mainly found in county high schools, while the positive impacts were found for students in urban high schools.

Key words: high school science education, advanced placement subject selection, urban high schools, county high schools, STEM pipeline theory

郭丛斌, 武玮, 任静. 新高考改革背景下高中科学教育能否影响学生高考科目选择——基于STEM管道理论的实证研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2025, 43(3): 95-109.

Congbin Guo, Wei Wu, Jing Ren. Whether High School Science Education Can Influence Students’ College Entrance Exam Subject Choices in the Context of the New College Entrance Exam Reform: An Empirical Study Based on the STEM Pipeline Theory[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2025, 43(3): 95-109.

图/表 11

图 1

表 1

表 2

表 3

表 4

图 2

表 5

表 6

图 3

图 4

表 7

分样本结构方程模型中介效应检验"

变量	路径		地市级高中		县域高中
变量	路径		效应值	95% CI	效应值	95% CI
高中科学教育	活动课程	直接效应	0.035***	[0.023, 0.047]	0.027***	[0.016, 0.038]
		间接效应
		→早期接触→物理科目组合选择	0.046***	[0.040, 0.051]	0.043**	[0.034, 0.052]
		→职业意识→物理科目组合选择	0.013***	[0.009, 0.017]	0.027***	[0.023, 0.031]
		→资源获取→物理科目组合选择	0.036***	[0.022, 0.049]	0.031**	[0.020, 0.042]
		总效应	0.132***	[0.008, 0.012]	0.128***	[0.022, 0.041]
	主题班会	直接效应	−0.030	[−0.068, 0.008]	−0.017	[−0.022, 0.025]
		间接效应
		→早期接触→物理科目组合选择	0.008	[−0.004, 0.012]	0.005	[−0.001, 0.009]
		→职业意识→物理科目组合选择	0.009	[−0.011, 0.020]	0.011	[−0.001, 0.021]
		→资源获取→物理科目组合选择	−0.009	[−0.019, 0.001]	0.006	[−0.001, 0.013]
		总效应	−0.021	[−0.047, 0.005]	0.007	[−0.002, 0.016]
	课外活动	直接效应	0.025	[−0.023, 0.073]	0.013	[−0.020, 0.046]
		间接效应
		→早期接触→物理科目组合选择	0.002	[−0.001, 0.004]	0.003	[−0.001, 0.006]
		→职业意识→物理科目组合选择	0.008	[−0.001, 0.017]	0.016	[ 0.004, 0.027]
		→资源获取→物理科目组合选择	0.007	[−0.003, 0.009]	−0.001	[−0.003, 0.001]
		总效应	0.043	[−0.003, 0.050]	0.031	[−0.011, 0.072]
	科技竞赛	直接效应	0.042***	[0.036, 0.049]	0.035***	[0.022, 0.048]
		间接效应
		→早期接触→物理科目组合选择	0.047**	[0.034, 0.050]	0.048**	[0.036, 0.060]
		→职业意识→物理科目组合选择	0.009***	[0.003, 0.016]	0.011***	[0.007, 0.015]
		→资源获取→物理科目组合选择	0.034	[−0.022, 0.089]	0.020	[−0.005, 0.010]
		总效应	0.130***	[0.123, 0.137]	0.114***	[0.115, 0.133]
	统计调查	直接效应	−0.016	[−0.034, 0.003]	−0.091***	[−0.034, −0.018]
		间接效应
		→早期接触→物理科目组合选择	0.016	[−0.002, 0.033]	0.059**	[0.034, 0.083]
		→职业意识→物理科目组合选择	0.013***	[0.004, 0.022]	−0.085***	[−0.103, −0.067]
		→资源获取→物理科目组合选择	0.008***	[0.004, 0.012]	−0.094**	[−0.099, −0.088]
		总效应	0.021**	[0.012, 0.030]	−0.211**	[−0.220, −0.131]

表 7

参考文献

	方芳, 钟秉林. (2022). 家庭背景对高中学生高考科目选择的影响——基于浙江省的调查研究. 教育学报, (01), 126- 137.
	焦以璇. (2024). 乡村科学教育短板如何补齐——借助各方资源做好中小学科学教育系列观察之三. 中国教育报, 2024-03-03 (02).
	刘海峰, 韦骅峰, 季玟希. (2023). 家庭资本结构视角下高中生高考选科的影响因素. 高等教育研究, (01), 57- 67.
	刘玉凡. (2023). 从山东投档线看专业冷热: 哪些专业跌落“神坛”?哪些专业正悄然崛起?取自半岛都市报((2023年7月20日): https://new.qq.com/rain/a/20230720A03STB00.
	杨倩. (2022). 高考科目选择与高等教育机会均等——兼论弃考物理能否增加大学入学机会. 中国高教研究, (02), 29- 34+41.
	张建珍, 梁晓雨. (2023). 新高考制度下家庭背景对高中生科目选择的影响分析. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (06), 47- 58.
	Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2023). Research on teaching, learning, and assessment of nature of science. Handbook of research on science education . New York : Routledge.
	Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science Aspirations, Capital, and Family Habitus: How Families Shape Children's Engagement and Identification with Science. American Educational Research Journal, 49 (5), 881- 908. doi: 10.3102/0002831211433290
	Ashman, G., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2020). Problem-solving or explicit instruction: Which should go first when element interactivity is high?. Educational Psychology Review, 32 (1), 229- 247. doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09500-5
	Ateş H, Gündüzalp C. (2023). A unified framework for understanding teachers’ adoption of robotics in STEM education. Education and Information Technologies, 15, 1- 27.
	Barlow D. (2014). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Education Digest, 79 (8), 71- 87.
	Barney J. (1991). Competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17 (1), 99- 120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108
	Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez‐González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103 (4), 799- 822. doi: 10.1002/sce.21522
	Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce. Science Education, 98 (3), 443- 460. doi: 10.1002/sce.21108
	Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44 (8), 1187- 1218.
	Chan, H. Y., Choi, H., Hailu, M. F., Whitford, M., & Duplechain DeRouen, S. (2020). Participation in structured STEM‐focused out‐of‐school time programs in secondary school: Linkage to postsecondary STEM aspiration and major. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57 (8), 1250- 1280. doi: 10.1002/tea.21629
	Davey, K. M. (2020). Organizational career development theory: Weaving individuals, organizations, and social structures. Oxford Handbook of Career Development. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
	Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103 (3), 623- 637. doi: 10.1002/sce.21499
	English, L. D., & Watson, J. M. (2015). Exploring variation in measurement as a foundation for statistical thinking in the elementary school. International Journal of STEM Education, 2, 1- 20. doi: 10.1186/s40594-014-0015-3
	Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands‐on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103 (1), 167- 186. doi: 10.1002/sce.21488
	Garfield, J., Hogg, B., Schau, C., & Whittinghill, D. (2002). First courses in statistical science: The status of educational reform efforts. Journal of Statistics Education, 10(2).
	Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, critical agency, and engineering: An affective model for predicting engineering as a career choice. Journal of Engineering Education, 105 (2), 312- 340. doi: 10.1002/jee.20118
	Habig, B., Gupta, P., Levine, B., & Adams, J. (2020). An informal science education program’s impact on STEM major and STEM career outcomes. Research in Science Education, 50 (3), 1051- 1074. doi: 10.1007/s11165-018-9722-y
	Ješková, Z., Lukáč, S., Šnajder, Ľ., Guniš, J., Klein, D., & Kireš, M. (2022). Active learning in STEM education with regard to the development of inquiry skills. Education Sciences, 12 (10), 686- 713. doi: 10.3390/educsci12100686
	Karahan, E., Bilici, S. C., & Ayçin, Ü. N. A. L. (2015). Integration of media design processes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 15 (60), 221- 240. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2015.60.15
	Kirchhoff, T., & Randler, C. (2023). Experimenting at an outreach science lab versus at school—Differences in students' basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and flow experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60 (2), 278- 301.
	Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75- 86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
	Kuchynka, S. L., Eaton, A., & Rivera, L. M. (2022). Understanding and addressing gender‐based inequities in STEM: Research synthesis and recommendations for US K‐12 education. Social Issues and Policy Review, 16 (1), 252- 288. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12087
	Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petrie, K. (2015). Development of a cognition‐priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52 (3), 410- 437. doi: 10.1002/tea.21200
	Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2013). Social cognitive model of career self-management: toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60 (4), 557. doi: 10.1037/a0033446
	Lin, P. Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). The dimensions and impact of informal science learning experiences on middle schoolers’ attitudes and abilities in science. International Journal of Science Education, 38 (17), 2551- 2572. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1251631
	Lissitsa, S., & Chachashvili-Bolotin, S. (2022). Timing patterns for making STEM-related educational choices in academic education–findings of a narrative study. International Journal of Science Education, 44 (2), 223- 244. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2021.2022806
	Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of Early Interest in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (5), 669- 685. doi: 10.1080/09500690902792385
	Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95 (5), 877- 907. doi: 10.1002/sce.20441
	McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94 (2), 203- 229. doi: 10.1002/sce.20364
	National Audit Office. (2018). Delivering STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills for the economy. Victoria and London: National Audit Press Office.
	National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. New York : National Academies Press.
	National Science and Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education . National Science Teachers Association.
	Oliveira, A., Feyzi Behnagh, R., Ni, L., Mohsinah, A. A., Burgess, K. J., & Guo, L. (2019). Emerging technologies as pedagogical tools for teaching and learning science: A literature review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1 (2), 149- 160. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.141
	Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Stuessy, C. (2015). High school students’ perceptions of the effects of international science Olympiad on their STEM career aspirations and twenty-first century skill development. Research in Science Education, 45, 785- 805. doi: 10.1007/s11165-014-9439-5
	Smyrnaiou, Z., Georgakopoulou, E., & Sotiriou, S. (2020). Promoting a mixed-design model of scientific creativity through digital storytelling—the CCQ model for creativity. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1- 22. doi: 10.1186/s40594-019-0200-5
	Upadhyay, B. R. (2006). Using students' lived experiences in an urban science classroom: An elementary school teacher's thinking. Science Education, 90 (1), 94- 110. doi: 10.1002/sce.20095
	Wan, Z. H., Zhan, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Positive or negative? The effects of scientific inquiry on science achievement via attitudes toward science. Science Education, 108 (1), 3- 24. doi: 10.1002/sce.21825
	Wong, B., Chiu, Y. L. T., Murray, Ó. M., & Horsburgh, J. (2022). End of the road? The career intentions of under-represented STEM students in higher education. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 51- 62. doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00366-8
	Wright, J. D., & Marsden, P. V. (2010). Survey research and social science: History, current practice, and future prospects. In: Wright J, Marsden P, editors. Handbook of survey research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
	Young, J. R., Ortiz, N., & 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.

编辑推荐 0

Metrics

阅读次数

全文

125

HTML			PDF

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版	最新录用	在线预览	正式出版
0	0	8	0	0	117

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	45	80
比例	36%	64%

摘要

246

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版

0	0	246

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	43	203
比例	17%	83%

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1.物理科目组合选择	1
2.活动课程	0.150**	1
3.主题班会	−0.003	0.527***	1
4.课外活动	0.003	0.634***	0.576***	1
5.科技竞赛	0.107**	0.605***	0.446***	0.592***	1
6.统计调查	−0.136**	0.620***	0.480***	0.628***	0.695***	1
7.早期接触	0.208***	0.272***	0.203***	0.234***	0.238***	0.226***	1
8.职业意识	0.209***	0.240***	0.176***	0.206***	0.225***	0.216***	0.743***	1
9.资源获取	−0.005	0.536***	0.450***	0.461***	0.455***	0.463***	0.368***	0.310***	1
平均值	0.736	2.961	3.309	2.998	2.772	2.772	3.455	3.223	3.241
标注差	0.442	0.871	0.954	0.954	0.965	0.983	0.504	0.512	0. 741

变量名称	地市级高中	县域高中	市中-县中差值
物理科目组合选择	0.790	0.605	0.185***
活动课程	3.005	2.887	0.118***
主题班会	3.365	3.213	0.153***
课外活动	3.052	2.905	0.147***
科技竞赛	2.822	2.687	0.135***
统计调查	2.834	2.668	0.166***
早期接触	3.446	3.322	0.124***
职业意识	3.209	3.103	0.106***
资源获取	3.151	2.968	0.183***

变量		模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4
高中科学教育	活动课程	0.102***	0.096**	0.091***	0.083**
	主题班会	−0.025	−0.010	−0.006	−0.010
	课外活动	0.013	0.009	0.005	0.004
	科技竞赛	0.092**	0.084**	0.082**	0.072**
	统计调查	−0.129***	−0.119***	−0.114***	−0.105***
控制变量	个体特征		YES		YES
控制变量	学校特征			YES	YES
Pseudo R²		0.017	0.045	0.022	0.046
N		8,990	8,990	8,990	8,990

	收敛效度			区分效度
	因子载荷	组合信度	平均方差	1	2	3
1.早期接触	0.886~0.919	0.823	0.807	0.780
2.职业意识	0.899~0.949	0.905	0.841	0.087	0.728
3.资源获取	0.723~0.886	0.732	0.683	0.123	0.227	0.643

变量		地市级高中		县域高中
变量		模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4
高中科学教育	活动课程	0.125***	0.094***	0.103***	0.071**
	主题班会	−0.022	−0.002	0.028	0.007
	课外活动	0.053	0.042	0.036	0.024
	科技竞赛	0.103***	0.077***	0.085**	0.069**
	统计调查	0.051***	0.022**	−0.221***	−0.188***
控制变量	个体特征	YES	YES	YES	YES
控制变量	学校特征		YES		YES
Pseudo R²		0.007	0.040	0.005	0.046
N		5,318	5,318	3,672	3,672