What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?

Nurcan KAHRAMAN (Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Matematik ve Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Bölümü, Bursa, Türkiye)
Hayef:journal of education (Online)
0 0
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 499 - 516 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011 İndeks Tarihi: 22-05-2022

What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?

Öz:
This study aims to investigate middle school students’ engagement in science from an international perspective. In the light of the expectancy–value theory of achievement-related behaviors, students’ gender, socio-economic status, selfefficacy, and task value (utility value and intrinsic value) were handled as predictors of science engagement. The data were gathered from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (2015). The participants of this study were eighth-grade middle school students from 30 different countries. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate how the combination of mentioned variables predicts students’ science engagement. According to the results, students’ task value beliefs have the highest contribution to the model. Besides, other findings were discussed in consideration of differences among countries.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Bae, C. L., & DeBusk-Lane, M. (2019). Middle school engagement profiles: Implications for motivation and achievement in science. Learning and Individual Differences, 74, 101–753. [CrossRef]
  • Bahar, A., & Adiguzel, T. (2016). Analysis of factors influencing interest in STEM career: Comparison between American and Turkish high school students with high ability. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 17(3), 64–69. Retrieved from http: //ezp roxy. libpr oxy.d b.era u.edu /logi n?url =http s://s earch .proq uest. com/d ocvie w/183 30374 80?ac count id=27 203.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
  • Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Parental influences on achievement motivation and student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 315–342). Berlin: Springer. [CrossRef]
  • Buchmann, C. (2002). Measuring family background in international studies of education: Conceptual issues and methodological challenges. Methodological Advances in Cross-National Surveys of Educational Achievement, 150–197.
  • Chinn, S. (2000). A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in metaanalysis. Statistics in Medicine, 19(22), 3127–3131. [CrossRef]
  • Chiu, M. M. (2007). Families, economies, cultures, and science achievement in 41 countries: Country-, school-, and student-level analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 510–519. [CrossRef]
  • Chiu, M. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2010). Relations of mathematics self-concept and its calibration with mathematics achievement: Cultural differences among fifteen-year-olds in 34 countries. Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 2–17.
  • Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cole, J. S., Bergin, D. A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2008). Predicting student achievement for low stakes tests with effort and task value. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 609–624. [CrossRef]
  • Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In Spence, J. T. (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
  • Eccles, J., & Wang, M. T. (2012). Part I commentary: So what is student engagement anyway?. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 133–145). Berlin: Springer.
  • Evans, J. A. (2015). Gender, self-efficacy, and mathematics achievement: An analysis of fourth grade and eighth grade TIMSS data from the United States. Educational Studies Dissertations, 63.
  • 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. [CrossRef]
  • Hofstede Insights. (2021). Country comparison. Hofstede Insights. Retrieved from https ://ww w.hof stede -insi ghts. com/c ountr y-com paris on/.
  • Hoy, A. W. (2004). Self-efficacy in college teaching. Essays on Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy, 15(7), 8–11.
  • International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (2013). IDB Analyzer (Computer software and manual). Hamburg, Germany: IEA.
  • Jacobson, L., & Mokher, C. (2009). Pathways to boosting the earnings of low-income students by increasing their educational attainment. Hudson Institute (NJ1).
  • Joyce, A. (2014). Stimulating interest in STEM careers among students in Europe: Supporting career choice and giving a more realistic view of STEM at work. European Schoolnet, Brussels.
  • Kenney-Benson, G. A., Pomerantz, E. M., Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2006). Sex differences in math performance: The role of children’s approach to schoolwork. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 11–26. [CrossRef]
  • Kim, Sw, Cho, H., & Kim, L. Y. (2019) Socioeconomic status and academic outcomes in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 89(6), 875–916. [CrossRef]
  • King, R. B. (2016). Gender differences in motivation, engagement and achievement are related to students’ perceptions of peer but not of parent or teacher attitudes toward school. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 60–71. [CrossRef]
  • Lam, S. F., Jimerson, S., Shin, H., Cefai, C., Veiga, F. H., Hatzichristou, C., Polychroni, F., Kikas, E., Wong, B. P. H., Stanculescu, E., Basnett, J., Duck, R., Farrell, P., Liu, Y., Negovan, V.,
  • Nelson, B., Yang, H., & Zollneritsch, J. (2016). Cultural universality and specificity of student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1) , 137–153. [CrossRef]
  • LaRoche, S., Joncas, M., & Foy, P. (2016). Sample design in TIMSS 2015. Methods and Procedures in TIMSS, 2015, 0–37. Retrieved from https ://ti mssan dpirl s.bc. edu/p ublic ation s/tim ss/20 15-me thods /chap ter-3 .html
  • Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119–137. [CrossRef] Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Wormington, S. V., Snyder, K. E., Riggsbee, J., Perez, T., Ben-Eliyahu,
  • A., & Hill, N. E. (2018). Multiple pathways to success: An examination of integrative motivational profiles among upper elementary and college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 1026–1048. [CrossRef]
  • 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. [CrossRef]
  • Markus, H., Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. (1996). Culture and “basic” psychological principles. In E. Tory Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 857–913). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survaival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. NY, USA.
  • Pugh, K. J., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L. K., Stewart, V. C., & Manzey, C. (2010). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: A study of deep engagement in science. Science Education, 94(1), 1–28. [CrossRef]
  • Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp.3–19). Berlin: Springer.
  • Ryu, S., & Lombardi, D. (2015). Coding classroom interactions for collective and individual engagement. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 70–83. [CrossRef]
  • Salili, F., Chiu, C. Y., & Lai, S. (2001). The influence of culture and context on students’ motivational orientation and performance. In F. Salili, C. Y. Chie& Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation (pp. 221–247). Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.
  • Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2010). Motivation in education: Theory, research and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • Sirin, S. R., & Rogers-Sirin, L. (2005). Components of school engagement among African American adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 9(1), 5–13.
  • Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). Berlin: Springer.
  • Tomaszewski, W., Xiang, N., & Western, M. (2020). Student engagement as a mediator of the effects of socio-economic status on academic performance among secondary school students in Australia. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 610–630. [CrossRef]
  • Tyler, K. M., Uqdah, A. L., Dillihunt, M. L., Beatty-Hazelbaker, R., Conner, T., Gadson, N., Henchy, A., Hughes, T., Mulder, S., Owens, E., Roan-Belle, C., Smith, L., & Stevens, R. (2008). Cultural discontinuity: Toward a quantitative investi- gation of a major hypothesis in education. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 280–297. [CrossRef]
  • Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174–1204. [CrossRef]
  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy– value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340. [CrossRef]
  • White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2005). Culture and social comparison seeking: The role of selfmotives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 232–242. [CrossRef]
  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265–310. [CrossRef]
  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78. [CrossRef]
  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. [CrossRef]
  • World Bank. (2021). New World Bank country classifications by income level: (2021–2022). Retrieved from https ://bl ogs.w orldb ank.o rg/op endat a/new -worl d-ban k-cou ntry- class ifica tions -inco me-le vel-2 021-2 022.
APA Kahraman N (2021). What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. , 499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
Chicago Kahraman Nurcan What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. (2021): 499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
MLA Kahraman Nurcan What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. , 2021, ss.499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
AMA Kahraman N What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. . 2021; 499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
Vancouver Kahraman N What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. . 2021; 499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
IEEE Kahraman N "What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?." , ss.499 - 516, 2021. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
ISNAD Kahraman, Nurcan. "What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?". (2021), 499-516. https://doi.org/10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
APA Kahraman N (2021). What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. Hayef:journal of education (Online), 18(3), 499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
Chicago Kahraman Nurcan What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. Hayef:journal of education (Online) 18, no.3 (2021): 499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
MLA Kahraman Nurcan What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. Hayef:journal of education (Online), vol.18, no.3, 2021, ss.499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
AMA Kahraman N What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. Hayef:journal of education (Online). 2021; 18(3): 499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
Vancouver Kahraman N What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?. Hayef:journal of education (Online). 2021; 18(3): 499 - 516. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
IEEE Kahraman N "What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?." Hayef:journal of education (Online), 18, ss.499 - 516, 2021. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
ISNAD Kahraman, Nurcan. "What Makes Students Engage in Science: Is It Universal?". Hayef:journal of education (Online) 18/3 (2021), 499-516. https://doi.org/10.5152/hayef.2021.21011
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 22:23

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları