Charting the Pathway to STEM: How Middle School Socialization and Science Growth Trajectories Predict Adult Career Success
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an excellently written study. The paper makes a significant contribution to research by synthesizing Social Cognitive Career Theory and Life Course Theory to model the socialization agents influencing middle school students’ science learning trajectories, which ultimately impact their STEM career prospects. The adoption of the large-scale longitudinal dataset (LSAY) and latent growth curve modeling is also exceptionally robust, enhancing empirical validity. The findings are well-organized and have important policy and practical implications.
I particularly liked that the greater influence of multiple agents was discussed collectively rather than in isolation. This view enhances the contribution of this study and provides a more comprehensive understanding of students’ developmental context.
For improvement:
- Although there are four key agents identified in the study (parental encouragement, peer support, school environment, and self-esteem), a more consistent description of each would have been helpful to readers. For instance, you could elaborate a bit on the operationalization of parental encouragement (e.g., emotional versus academic push) and distinguish peer support more clearly from general friendship quality, as well as whether self-esteem is predominantly conceptualized as an individual trait or rather as an outcome of socialization. It seemed that some relations between the two reactions were not explained. A more detailed description in the section “Conceptual framework” would be convenient.
The theoretical justification (SCCT, Life Course Theory) is strong; however, the relationship to indicators in LSAY could be more direct. It would be even stronger if the study explicitly linked each LSAY item or scale to a theoretical construct.
Additionally, some comments on the implications of these results for schools and families are warranted in the discussion. For instance, what types of parental involvement/school policies are most likely to elicit the desired positive growth in development? This would enhance the practical relevance of this paper for practitioners.
In-text citation format should be checked and revised.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
We thank Reviewer 1 for their positive and encouraging feedback, describing our study as "excellently written" and a "significant contribution." We are pleased that the theoretical integration, methodological robustness, and collective examination of socialization agents were well-received.
Comment 1.1: Although there are four key agents identified in the study... a more consistent description of each would have been helpful to readers... A more detailed description in the section "Conceptual framework" would be convenient.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have revised Section 2.1, "The Synergistic Influence of Socialization Agents on Science and STEM Development," to provide a more consistent and detailed conceptualization and operationalization of each agent. We have added a dedicated subsection with clear definitions, explaining the specific nature of "parental educational encouragement" as focused on long-term goals (college push), distinguishing "peer academic support" from general friendship, and clarifying our positioning of "student self-esteem" as a foundational global resource. This enhancement provides greater clarity for the reader.
Comment 1.2: ...the relationship to indicators in LSAY could be more direct. It would be even stronger if the study explicitly linked each LSAY item or scale to a theoretical construct.
Response: We agree with the reviewer that a tighter link between theory and measurement strengthens the manuscript. In the revised Section 4.2 ("Measures"), we have explicitly connected each LSAY measure to its corresponding theoretical construct from SCCT and Life Course Theory. For example, we now state that the "parent college push" item operationalizes the environmental support and contextual affordances emphasized in SCCT, and the self-esteem scale measures the personal input factor of global self-worth.
Comment 1.3: ...some comments on the implications of these results for schools and families are warranted in the discussion... what types of parental involvement/school policies are most likely to elicit the desired positive growth in development?
Response: This is a very valuable point. We have significantly expanded Section 6.5, "Policy and Intervention Implications: Toward a Synergistic Ecology of Support," to provide more concrete and actionable recommendations. We now offer specific examples for parents (e.g., discussing science positively, expressing high expectations), schools (e.g., investing in teacher professional development for inquiry-based learning, structuring collaborative projects), and policymakers (e.g., funding family STEM nights, integrated grants). This enhances the practical relevance of our findings.
Comment 1.4: In-text citation format should be checked and revised.
Response: We apologize for this oversight. We have meticulously checked and revised the in-text citation format throughout the entire manuscript to ensure it conforms to the journal's style guide.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe rationale and motivation for this study are clearly introduced with reference to relevant literature and the gap in literature that this study addresses, i.e. “integrated the collective influence of key socialization agents, modelled the dynamic trajectories of science learning they predict, and traced their distal effects onto the tangible outcomes of earning a STEM degree and securing STEM employment in adulthood”.
Emphasizes is spelt incorrectly in row 112.
Please state in abstract and first mention of seventh grade on line 150 what are student ages, grade-7 (aged XX-YY years).
Section 2 introduces the conceptual framework, supported by key literature, but it is a little long winded and repetitive in sections. It is difficult to follow the rationale and formation of the conceptual framework and suggest a diagram may help to clarify how authors navigate from Life Course Theory and social cognitive career theory to the four key socialization agents in seventh grade (parental educational encouragement, peer academic support, a supportive school learning environment, and student self-esteem)?
Section 3. The five hypotheses presented in section 3 are interesting to interrogate this extensive data set and please clarify how these hypotheses were prepared and how relate to the research questions of this study?
Section 4.2 introduces the different constructs that were measured at various times. Are the data collection tools available or can they be referenced? Can you clarify if these were all matched values for each individual?
Section 4.3 describes the methodology adopted for modelling data. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the statistical analysis procedure adopted and I found it difficult to follow the description presented, namely, conditional latent growth curve modeling (LGCM) with time-invariant covariates and distal outcomes and this impacts on my ability to interpret and understand findings presented in Section 5.
Section 6 concludes “STEM development as a dynamic, growth-oriented process rather than a static outcome” and conflates science and STEM. The authors describe several conclusions from their study that should be linked back to their conceptual framework.
Section 6.1.1 presents interesting considerations and identifies some limitations of this study.
While the use of a sequential mediation model: socialization agents → science trajectories → STEM degree → STEM career, offers a linear pathway for analysing individuals’ participation, it is not representative of the complex and diverse pathways followed by many STEM professionals. Collecting data from STEM professionals to track these pathways, could offer alterative hypotheses for analysis.
Is it possible to map socialization agents for grade 7 students from 1987 to current day and discuss changes over the course of three decades?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English language is good – but overall, I found the manuscript difficult to read and understand. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the statistical analysis procedure adopted and I found it difficult to follow the description and findings presented.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
We thank Reviewer 2 for their thorough review and valuable suggestions, which have helped us improve the manuscript's clarity and accessibility, especially for readers less familiar with advanced statistical techniques.
Comment 2.1: Emphasizes is spelt incorrectly in row 112.
Response: We have corrected this typo to "emphasizes."
Comment 2.2: Please state in abstract and first mention of seventh grade on line 150 what are student ages, grade-7 (aged XX-YY years).
Response: We have added the typical student age (12-13 years) to both the Abstract and the first mention in the Introduction (line 150), as suggested.
Comment 2.3: Section 2... is a little long winded and repetitive in sections. It is difficult to follow the rationale... and suggest a diagram may help...
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have streamlined Section 2 to reduce repetition and improve the flow of the theoretical rationale. Furthermore, as suggested, we have added Figure 1 in Section 3 as elaboration, which provides a schematic diagram illustrating how SCCT and Life Course Theory inform the selection of the four socialization agents and their proposed influence on science trajectories and distal STEM outcomes. This visual aid significantly enhances the clarity of our conceptual framework.
Comment 2.4: Section 3... please clarify how these hypotheses were prepared and how relate to the research questions of this study?
Response: We have revised the beginning of Section 3 ("The Present Study") to more explicitly state the overarching research aim. Following this, we now clearly explain that the five hypotheses were formulated to empirically test the proposed structural model derived from the integrated SCCT and Life Course Theory framework, directly examining the direct, mediation, and sequential relationships outlined in our aim.
Comment 2.5: Section 4.2... Are the data collection tools available or can they be referenced? Can you clarify if these were all matched values for each individual?
Response: We have added a citation to the LSAY User Guide (Miller, 2014) in Section 4.2 to reference the source of the data collection tools. We have also added the following sentence to confirm the data structure: "All data were collected and matched at the individual participant level across all waves of the study, creating a longitudinal record for each of the 3,116 students."
Comment 2.6 & 2.12: Section 4.3 describes the methodology... I found it difficult to follow the description presented... impacts on my ability to interpret and understand findings...
Response: We acknowledge that the technical description of LGCM can be challenging. To address this, we have made two key revisions:
- In Section 4.3, we have added a more accessible, plain-language summary of what the LGCM analysis does conceptuallybefore presenting the statistical equations. We explain that it essentially captures each student's starting point (intercept) and their rate of improvement (slope) in science across middle school.
- In Section 5.2, we have taken greater care to interpret the key results of the LGCM models (Models 2 and 3) in a clear, substantive manner, focusing on the meaning of the coefficients for the intercept and slope rather than just their statistical significance. We hope these changes make the methodology and findings more interpretable for a broad audience.
Comment 2.7: Section 6... conflates science and STEM. The authors describe several conclusions from their study that should be linked back to their conceptual framework.
Response: We have carefully reviewed Section 6 to ensure consistent and precise language, distinguishing between "science" (the subject performance in middle school) and "STEM" (the broader educational and career outcomes). We have also strengthened the discussion by more explicitly and frequently linking our conclusions back to the core tenets of SCCT and Life Course Theory, as suggested.
Comment 2.8: While the use of a sequential mediation model... offers a linear pathway... it is not representative of the complex and diverse pathways followed by many STEM professionals.
Response: We agree with the reviewer that career pathways can be non-linear and complex. We have added a sentence in the "Limitations and Future Directions" section (Section 6.7) to acknowledge this limitation explicitly. We state that while our model tests a theoretically-grounded sequential pathway, future research could collect qualitative data from STEM professionals to uncover and model these more complex, alternative pathways.
Comment 2.9: Is it possible to map socialization agents for grade 7 students from 1987 to current day and discuss changes over the course of three decades?
Response: This is an insightful point. We have added a paragraph in the "Limitations" section (Section 6.7) that directly addresses the temporal context of our data. We acknowledge that the nature of socialization agents may have evolved due to the rise of the internet, social media, and shifting educational policies since 1987. We suggest that while the fundamental mechanisms we identified are likely still relevant, future research should replicate our analysis with contemporary longitudinal data to map any potential changes in the socialization ecology.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your comprehensive and thorough of this manuscript and clear and appropriate updates made in response to reviewers comments. The manuscript and arguments are clear and coherent throughout and I recommend is now suitable for publication - subject to correction of some layout issues.
Author Response
Reviewers’ Comments:
R2.1) Thank you for your comprehensive and thorough of this manuscript and clear and appropriate updates made in response to reviewers comments. The manuscript and arguments are clear and coherent throughout and I recommend is now suitable for publication - subject to correction of some layout issues.
Reply: Thank you, we have carefully checked the presentation styles and grammatical issues of the whole manuscript to ensure the accuracy of the meanings, study relationships, hypotheses, data, findings, and discussion as well as the references cited in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
