Talent development in STEM is a complex process in which many factors interact on several systemic levels (Stoeger et al., 2024). However, all these factors interact proximally in the situations in which learning occurs. How students perceive learning situations (e.g., positive, interesting) will likely impact the learning outcome. We expect this to apply particularly to different groups of students, especially to high-achieving students. A multitude of findings seem to support these expectations (e.g., Rinn, 2024; Sternberg, 2024). Nonetheless, there is currently an absence of a conceptual framework that systematically delineates situations and their dimensions within the learning context.

A theoretical approach that is increasingly used in the field of educational topics by focusing on situations is the DIAMONDS approach by Rauthmann et al. (2014), which is seen as particularly promising (e.g., Abrahams et al., 2021; Konaszewski et al., 2025; Witte et al., 2024). This framework categorizes situationperception in everyday life into eight dimensions: Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, pOsitivity, Negativity, Deception, Sociality. At this point, especially in STEM education, there is a lack of use of this approach. Consequently, the following research questions were formulated to provide a basis for the integration of the DIAMONDS approach into STEM lessons:

RQ (1): How do students perceive STEM lessons based on the DIAMONDS approach (Rauthmann et al., 2014)?

RQ (2): How does the perception of STEM lessons change over time?

RQ (3): Can significant group differences be identified?

The dataset included 248 students enrolled in German secondary schools at two measurement points (fall 2022 and summer 2024; M_{Age_Fall2022} = 13.69; SD_{Age_Fall2022}= 0.41). A survey based on the DIAMONDS S8-1 version (Rauthmann & Sherman, 2018), adapted to STEM education, was administered to all students to ascertain their perception of situation characteristics of STEM lessons (sample item: “I feel comfortable in STEM lessons” for pOsitivity). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each dimension on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all”  to 7 = “totally”). With regard to RQ (3), our main interest was in two group factors: Groups according to gender (Male: n_Male = 105; Female: n_Female = 143) and according to academic achievement (High-Achiever: n_High= 43; Average-Achiever: N_Average = 169; Low-Achiever: n_Low= 36). Average-Achiever means students whose STEM average grade matches the mean, including those who deviate by one standard deviation.

Preliminary evaluations of the study have yielded the following conclusions: (1) There are notable inconsistencies in the mean values of the dimension of the DIAMONDS at both measurement points (e.g., pOsitivity and Negativity). Furthermore, the standard deviations are relatively high for each dimension, indicating a considerable degree of heterogeneity in perceptions. (2) The mean values of the negatively connoted dimensions were found to increase significantly over time (e.g., Deception and Negativity). (3) With regard to group differences, it was also found that female students and Low-Achiever rated STEM lessons significantly more negatively than their fellow students. A thorough examination of the developmental process over time revealed that significant changes can only be observed in the distinction between gender (i.e., Mating and Deception).

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the DIAMONDS approach to STEM education in secondary schools over time, and the results are particularly noteworthy. In addition to differences in how students perceive STEM lessons, our results indicate that these perceptions vary according to group factors. It can therefore be hypothesized that there is a relation to talent development and the targeted inclusion of females in the STEM field.

We collected and cleaned data in accordance with defined steps: (a) lack of consent, (b) contradictory answers, and (c) suspected systematic response behavior. These steps yielded data sets from N = 248 students (nMale = 105; nFemale = 143; MAge_Fall2022 = 13.69; SDAge_Fall2022 = 0.41). Our study recognized personal (group) factors, including gender and academic achievement, as well as situational characteristics of STEM lessons, as key components. The personal factors were surveyed using the group factor gender and the last report card grades in STEM subjects (group factor academic achievement). Both of these were measured using self-reports. Grades 1 (“very good”) to 6 (“insufficient”) were divided into groups: High-Achiever (at least one SD above the mean), Average-Achiever (mean and one standard deviation above or below), and Low-Achiever (at least one SD below the mean). Data on the perception of STEM lessons was collected using the DIAMONDS S8-1 scale (Rauthmann & Sherman, 2018). The original items were adapted to STEM education and included eight statements such as “I feel comfortable in STEM lessons” for pOsitivity. Participants rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“totally”). The validity of this instrument was assumed in this context based on theoretical findings and evidence (e.g., Ketscher et al., 2025; Rauthmann et al., 2014; Rauthmann & Sherman, 2016a, 2016b). The subsequent questioning of the subjective perception of the situation characteristics engendered a substantial discourse on the subsequent statistical analysis, which was ultimately executed using SPSS version 29.0.2.0 (IBM Corp., 2023). Despite the inability to ascertain a normal distribution of the data, parametric tests were conducted in accordance with the recommendations set forth by e.g., Kubinger et al. (2009) and Schmider et al. (2010). This issue is also pertinent to the examination of gender differences within the group (Welch t-test; RQ3) and academic achievement (One-Way ANOVA; RQ3), but also to the comparison of individual dimensions (paired sample t-test; RQ1) at individual measurement points. Additionally, methods, including the paired sample t-test (for the comparison of perceptions of education; RQ2), Welch t-test (for the comparison of gender differences; RQ3), and ANOVA with repeated measures (for the comparison of achievement level differences; RQ3), were employed to calculate differences over time.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to employ the DIAMONDS approach into STEM education at two measurement points, and the findings are noteworthy in that they can be partially derived from intuitive reasoning. It can be concluded that (a) there is considerable diversity in respondents’ perspectives on STEM education, which is to be anticipated given the influence of individual factors, such as academic achievement and gender. It should be noted that the standard deviation for each dimension is relatively high. In particular, the dimensions Intellect and Duty indicate a predominance, which shows a certain similarity to Konaszewski et al. (2025). Further research is required in order to gain insight into the underlying causes of these circumstances. Nevertheless, it seems equally important to explore these novel insights into talent development and the involvement of females in the STEM field. Furthermore, it is notable that (b) there is a growing perception of STEM education as negative over time. Significant differences were observed exclusively in the domains of Mating and Deception, with regard to gender. In the context of Mating, an argumentation similar to that put forth by Kesberg & Keller (2018) may be made. Additionally, (c) female students and those with lower achievement perceive STEM lessons significantly more negatively, while (d) male students and those with higher achievement tend to perceive them more positively. In light of the current findings, it can be posited that the outcomes yielded by focusing on situation perception are aligned with the existing fundamental research conclusions. In total, the study presented here allows the identification of descriptive data on situations characteristics of the (STEM) education sector, which should be explored in greater depth in the further course of the research.

Main References: Abrahams, L., Rauthmann, J. F., & De Fruyt, F.. (2021). Person-situation dynamics in educational contexts: A self- and other-rated experience sampling study of teachers’ states, traits, and situations. European Journal of Personality, 35(4), 598–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211005621 Kesberg, R., & Keller, J. (2018). The relation between human values and perceived situation characteristics in everyday life. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1676. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01676 Ketscher, L., Stoeger, H., Vialle, W., & Ziegler, A. (2025). Same classroom, cifferent reality: Secondary school students’ perceptions of STEM lessons—A pioneering study. Education Sciences, 15(4), 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040467 Konaszewski, K., Fajkowska, M., Rogoza, M., Rogoza, R., & Karwowski, M. (2025). Personality types and educational situation perception in juveniles from youth and probation centers. Personality and Individual Differences, 236, 113005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.113005 Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., Ziegler, M., Jones, A. B., & Funder, D. C. (2014). The situational eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 677–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037250 Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2016a). Measuring the situational eight DIAMONDS characteristics of situations: An optimization of the RSQ-8 to the S8*. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000246 Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2016b). Ultra-brief measures for the situational eight DIAMONDS domains. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000245 Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2018). S8-I. Situational Eight DIAMONDS—deutsche Fassung [Verfahrensdokumentation und Fragebogen] [Situational Eight DIAMONDS—German version [Procedure documentation and questionnaire]]. In Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID) (Ed.), Open Test Archive. ZPID. https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.6568 Rinn, A. N. (2024). A critique on the current state of research on the social and emotional experiences of gifted individuals and a framework for moving the field forward. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231197780 Schmider, E., Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Beyer, L., & Bühner, M. (2010). Is it really robust?: Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology, 6(4), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000016 Sternberg, R. J. (2024). Reframing social and emotional development of the gifted. Behavioral Sciences, 14(9), 752. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090752 Stoeger, H., Luo, L., & Ziegler, A. (2024). Attracting and developing STEMM talent toward excellence and innovation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1533(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15108 Witte, K., Spinath, B., & Ziegler, M. (2024). Dissecting achievement motivation: Exploring the link between states, situation perception, and trait-state dynamics. Learning and Individual Differences, 112, 102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102439