Advertisement

A NORWEGIAN OUT-OF-SCHOOL MATHEMATICS PROJECT’S INFLUENCE ON SECONDARY STUDENTS’ STEM MOTIVATION

  • Fredrik Jensen
  • Jørgen Sjaastad
Article

Abstract

Considerable resources are spent on initiatives aiming to increase achievement and participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Drawing on focus group interviews and a questionnaire study with participants in ENT3R, a Norwegian out-of-school mathematics program, we investigated why participants attended and stayed in this program and assessed how it influenced participants’ STEM motivation. The authors identified 3 aspects of ENT3R highlighted by the participants: The instructors provided good teaching, the instructors created a positive atmosphere, and the instructors engaged in interpersonal relationships. Moreover, drawing on the expectancy-value model, the authors found that ENT3R appeared to influence 5 factors in the model that are important for STEM motivation: expectation of success, interest–enjoyment value, attainment value, utility value, and cost. This study points to the importance of carefully recruited and trained instructors and of flexible, responsively designed extracurricular programs.

Key words

educational choice motivation out-of-school projects recruitment role models STEM careers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson-Rowland, M. R., Banks, D. L., Zerby, D. M. & Chain, E. A. (2005, October). Evaluating a collaborative program to increase the enrollment and retention of community college transfer students. Paper presented at the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  2. Andrée, M. & Hansson, L. (2013). Marketing the ‘Broad Line’: Invitations to STEM education in a Swedish recruitment campaign. International Journal of Science Education, 35(1), 147–166. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.695880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buck, G. A., Clark, V. L., Leslie-Pelecky, D., Lu, Y. & Cerda-Lizarraga, P. (2008). Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: A feminist approach. Science Education, 92(4), 688–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bøe, M. V. (2012). Science choices in Norwegian upper secondary school: What matters? Science Education, 96(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1002/sce.20461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T. & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantrell, P. & Ewing-Taylor, J. (2009). Exploring STEM career options through collaborative high school seminars. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleaves, A. (2005). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 471–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummins, R. A. & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, Singapore.Google Scholar
  11. Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M. & Hazari, Z. (2011). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 63–79. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2011.629455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeWitt, J., Archer, L., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B. & Wong, B. (2011). High aspirations but low progression: The science aspirations–careers paradox amongst minority ethnic students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 243–271. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9245-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L. & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviours. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. Psychological and sociological approaches. San Francisco: W. H. Friedman & Co.Google Scholar
  14. Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S. & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility–value intervention. Psychological Science, 23(8), 899–906. doi: 10.1177/0956797611435530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hattie, J. (Ed.). (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M. & Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003.Google Scholar
  17. Holmegaard, H. T. (2012). The process of choosing what to study: A longitudinal study of upper secondary students’ identity work when choosing higher education. Accepted for publication 21.02.2012 in Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research.Google Scholar
  18. Hyde, J. S. & Linn, M. C. (2006). DIVERSITY: Enhanced: Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science, 314(5799), 599–600. doi: 10.1126/science.1132154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jensen, F. & Bøe, M. V. (2013). A Norwegian 2-day recruitment event’s influence on upper secondary female students’ STEM motivations. Manuscript in progress.Google Scholar
  20. Jussim, L. & Osgood, D. W. (1989). Influence and similarity among friends: An integrative model applied to incarcerated adolescents. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(2), 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kjærnsli, M., Lie, S., Olsen, R. V. & Roe, A. (Eds.). (2007). Tid for tunge løft. Norske elevers kompetanse i naturfag, lesing og matematikk i PISA 2006. [Time for heavy lifting. Norwegian students’ competence in science, reading, and mathematics in PISA 2006]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  22. Kjærnsli, M. & Roe, A. (Eds.). (2010). På rett spor. Norske elevers kompetanse i lesing, matematikk og naturfag i PISA 2009 [On the right track. Norwegian students competencies in reading, mathematics and science in PISA 2009]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  23. Krapp, A. & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krueger, R. A. (Ed.). (1998). Analyzing & reporting focus group results, vol. 6. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Larson, R. W. & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: Work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 701–736. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyons, T. & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science. Understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments (I. a. M. E. f. R. a. r. A. National Centre of Science, Trans.). Armidale: University of New England.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Education and Research (2010). Realfag for framtida. Strategi for styrking av realfagene 2010–2014 [STEM for the future. Strategy for strengthening the STEM disciplines 2010–2014.]. In M. o. e. a. research (Ed.). Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council (2009). In P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse & M. A. Feder (Eds.), Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. OECD (2008). Education at a glance 2008 OECD Indicators: OECD.Google Scholar
  31. Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  32. Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Tytler, R. (2009). Attitudes towards science: An update. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  34. Robson, C. (Ed.). (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden. Norwegian youth’s orientations towards science–seen as signs of late modern identities. Doctor Scientarium, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  36. Schreiner, C., Henriksen, E. K., Sjaastad, J., Jensen, F. & Løken, M. (2010). Vilje-con-valg: valg og bortvalg av realfag [Choosing—or not choosing—STEM higher education in Norway]. KIMEN, 2010(2), 1–107.Google Scholar
  37. Sjaastad, J. (2011). Sources of inspiration: The role of significant persons in young people’s choice of science in higher education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1615–1636. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.590543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sjaastad, J. (2012). Measuring the ways significant persons influence attitudes towards science and mathematics. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 192–212. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.672775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (Eds.). (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Swimmer, F. & Jarratt-Ziemski, K. (2007). Intersections between science & engineering education and recruitment of female and Native American students. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual conference & exposition, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
  41. Taconis, R. & Kessels, U. (2009). How choosing science depends on students’ individual fit to “science culture”. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1115–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. The RENATE Centre (2011). The ENTER project—English summary retrieved 01.06.2011, from http://renatesenteret.no/content/1142/In-English.
  43. UNESCO. (2010). Engineering: Issues, challenges and opportunities for development. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  44. Vollstedt, A.-M. & Wang, E. L. (2006). Adressing low enrollment in engineering schools using the segway HT as a recruitment tool. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Engineering Education, San Juan, PR.Google Scholar
  45. Woolston, D. C., Zaki, E. & Winter, C. J. (1997). The effectiveness of freshman recruiting strategies: An analysis at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference: Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  46. Yore, L. D. (2011). Foundations of scientific, mathematical, and technological literacies—common themes and theoretical frameworks. In L. D. Yore, E. V. d. Flier-Keller, D. W. Blades, T. W. Pelton & D. B. Zandvliet (Eds.), Pacific CRYSTAL centre for science, mathematics, and technology literacy: Lessons learned (pp. 23–44). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Zeldin, A., Britner, S. & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Centre for Science EducationOsloNorway
  2. 2.Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and EducationOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations