Preprint / Version 1

Starting Young in STEM: The Relationship Between Competition Entry Age and Student Engagement Patterns

##article.authors##

  • Dominic Ely St. Michaels University School
  • Ethan Curtis

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58445/rars.2400

Keywords:

STEM competitions, Student engagement, Academic achievement, Early participation, High school education, Academic self-efficacy, Growth mindset in STEM, Competition-based learning, STEM education research, Extracurricular activities in STEM, Regression analysis in academic performance

Abstract

Early participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) competitions is often promoted as a pathway to academic excellence and engagement, yet empirical evidence remains limited. This study investigates the relationship between the age of first STEM competition participation and subsequent academic and extracurricular outcomes among high school students. A sample of 116 students from Canada and the United States completed an online survey assessing competition history, STEM grade point average (GPA), and time spent on STEM activities. Participants were grouped as early starters (5–10 years old, n = 58), late starters (11–14+ years old, n = 48), or non-participants (n = 10). Independent t-tests revealed that early starters participated in more competitions (M = 5.10 vs. 3.65, p = .001, d = 0.70) and more frequently (M = 3.12 vs. 2.46, p = .002, d = 0.62) than late starters, alongside greater weekly STEM activity hours (M = 7.62 vs. 5.48, p = .012, d = 0.51). However, no significant GPA difference emerged (p = .108). Regression analysis (R² = .13) identified advanced coursework and activity hours as predictors of GPA, not participation age. Findings suggest that early STEM competition exposure enhances engagement but not necessarily academic performance, offering insights for educators fostering STEM talent among youth. 

References

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.

Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360698496

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

National Science Foundation. (2021). The state of U.S. science and engineering 2021. National Science Board. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20211

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543

Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128690

Downloads

Posted

2025-04-01

Categories