Advertisement

PERCEIVED SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND SCIENCE LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR TAIWANESE EIGHTH GRADERS: STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING WITH A COMPLEX SAMPLING CONSIDERATION

  • Tsung-Hau JenEmail author
  • Che-Di Lee
  • Chin-Lung Chien
  • Ying-Shao Hsu
  • Kuan-Ming Chen
Article

ABSTRACT

Based on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2007 study and a follow-up national survey, data for 3,901 Taiwanese grade 8 students were analyzed using structural equation modeling to confirm a social-relation-based affection-driven model (SRAM). SRAM hypothesized relationships among students’ perceived social relationships in science class and affective and cognitive learning outcomes to be examined. Furthermore, the path coefficients of SRAM for high- and low-achieving subgroups were compared. Given the 2-stage stratified clustering design for sampling, jackknife replications were conducted to estimate the sampling errors for all coefficients in SRAM. Results suggested that both perceived teacher–student relationships (PTSR) and perceived peer relationships (PPR) exert significant positive effects on students’ self-confidence in learning science (SCS) and on their positive attitude toward science (PATS). These affective learning outcomes (SCS and PATS) were found to play a significant role in mediating the perceived social relationships (PTSR and PPR) and science achievement. Further results regarding the differences in SRAM model fit between high- and low-achieving students are discussed, as are the educational and methodological implications of this study.

KEY WORDS

complex sampling large-scale survey learning motivation science achievement self-determination theory social relationships structural equation modeling TIMSS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bao, X. H. & Lam, S. F. (2008). Who makes the choice? Rethinking the role of autonomy and relatedness in Chinese children’s motivation. Child Development, 79(2), 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equation modeling with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Chien, C.-L., Jen, T.-H. & Chang, S.-T. (2008). Academic self-concept and achievement within and between math and science: An examination on Marsh and Köller’s unification model. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 40, 107–126.Google Scholar
  7. Cosmovici, E. M., Idsoe, T., Bru, E. & Munthe, E. (2009). Perceptions of learning environment and on-task orientation among students reporting different achievement levels: A study conducted among Norwegian secondary school students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(4), 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorman, J. P. (2001). Associations between classroom environment and academic efficacy. Learning Environments Research, 4, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erlauer, L. (2003). The brain-compatible classroom: Using what we know about learning to improve teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  10. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foy, P., Galia, J. & Li, I. (2008). Scaling the data from the TIMSS 2007 mathematics and science assessments. In J. F. Olson, M. O. Martin & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS 2007 technical report (pp. 225–279). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  12. Hardre, P. L., Chen, C.-H., Huang, S.-H., Chiang, C.-T., Jen, F.-L. & Warden, L. (2006). Factors affecting high school students’ academic motivation in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 26, 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods Research, 11, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jöreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  15. Keller, H. (2012). Autonomy and relatedness revisited: Cultural manifestations of universal human needs. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  17. Langendyk, V. (2006). Not knowing that they do not know: Self-assessment accuracy of third-year medical students. Medical Education, 40, 173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ma, X. & Xu, J. (2004). Determining the causal ordering between attitude toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. American Journal of Education, 110, 256–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (2003). Culture, self, and the reality of the social. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3), 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marsh, H. W. (1990). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 646–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, M. O. & Preuschoff, C. (2008). Creating the TIMSS 2007 background Indices. In J. F. Olson, M. O. Martin & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS 2007 technical report (pp. 225–279). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  22. McCoach, D. B., Black, A. C. & O’Connell, A. A. (2007). Errors of inference in structural equation modeling. Psychology in the Schools, 44(5), 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mislevy, R. J. (1991). Randomization-based inference about latent variables from complex samples. Psychometrika, 56(2), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D. & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson, R. M. & DeBacker, T. K. (2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ng, F. F. Y., Kenney-Benson, G. A. & Pomerantz, E. M. (2004). Children’s achievement moderates the effects of mothers’ use of control and autonomy support. Child Development, 75(3), 764–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Education Psychology, 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shrigley, R. L. (1990). Attitude and behavior are correlates. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, I. M. & Lonsdale, C. (2010). Cultural differences in the relationships among autonomy support, psychological need satisfaction, subjective vitality, and effort in British and Chinese physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32(5), 655–673.Google Scholar
  32. Tsai, C.-C. & Kuo, P. C. (2008). Cram school students’ conceptions of learning and learning science in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. United States National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  34. Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolf, S. J. & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38, 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yore, L. D., Anderson, J. O. & Chui, M.-H. (2010). Moving PISA results into the policy arena: Perspectives on knowledge transfer for future considerations and preparations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tsung-Hau Jen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Che-Di Lee
    • 1
  • Chin-Lung Chien
    • 2
  • Ying-Shao Hsu
    • 3
  • Kuan-Ming Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.Science Education CenterNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiRepublic of China
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations