Advertisement

A SURVEY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL, MOTIVATIONAL, FAMILY AND PERCEPTIONS OF PHYSICS EDUCATION FACTORS THAT EXPLAIN 15-YEAR-OLD STUDENTS’ ASPIRATIONS TO STUDY PHYSICS IN POST-COMPULSORY ENGLISH SCHOOLS

  • Tamjid MujtabaEmail author
  • Michael J. Reiss
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the factors that influence 15-year-old students’ intentions to study physics post-16, when it is no longer compulsory. The analysis is based on the year 10 (age, 15 years) responses of 5,034 students from 137 England schools as learners of physics during the academic year 2008–2009. Factor analyses uncovered a range of physics-specific constructs, 7 of which were statistically significantly associated with intention to study physics post-16 in our final multi-level model; in descending order of effect size, these are extrinsic material gain motivation, intrinsic value of physics, home support for achievement in physics, emotional response to physics lessons, perceptions of physics lessons, physics self-concept and advice-pressure to study physics. A further analysis using individual items from the survey rather than constructs (aggregates of items) supported the finding that extrinsic motivation in physics was the most important factor associated with intended participation. In addition, this item-level analysis indicated that, within the advice-pressure to study physics construct, the encouragement individual students receive from their teachers is the key factor that encourages them to intend to continue with physics post-16.

Key words

attitudes gender methodology motivation physics science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alsop, S. (Ed.). (2005). Beyond Cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Archer, L. (2003). Race, masculinity and schooling: Muslim boys and education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Archer, L. & Francis, B. (2007). Understanding minority ethnic achievement: ‘Race’, class, gender and ‘success’. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bhanot, R. T. & Jovanovic, J. (2009). The links between parent behaviors and girls’ and boys’ science achievement beliefs. Applied Developmental Science, 13(1), 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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), 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2009). Higher ambitions: The future of universities in a knowledge economy. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.Google Scholar
  11. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008). Statistical first release: Attainment by pupil characteristics, in England 2007/08 (Annex 1) SFR 32/2008. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
  12. DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2011). Young children’s aspiration in Science: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, iFirst, 127. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.608197.
  13. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (2004). Europe Needs More Scientists: Report by the high level group on increasing human resources for science and technology. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Farenga, S. J. & Joyce, B. A. (1999). Intentions of young students to enroll in science courses in the future: an examination of gender differences. Science Education, 83, 55–75.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science. Studies in Science Education, 2, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenfield, T. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 901–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haas, J. (2005). The situation in industry and the loss of interest in science education. European Journal of Education, 40(4), 21–27.Google Scholar
  19. Hattie, J. A. C. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, P. & Elias, P. (2005). Science, engineering and technology and the UK’s ethnic minority population: A report for the royal society. Coventry: Warwick Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  21. Knapp, T. (1990). Treating Ordinal Scales as Interval Scales: An Attempt To Resolve the Controversy. Nursing Research, 39(2), 121–123.Google Scholar
  22. Knapp, T. (1993). Treating ordinal scales as ordinal scales. Nursing Research, 42(3), 184–186.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, J. D. (1998). Which kids can ‘become’ scientists? Effects of gender, self concepts, and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(3), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experience of school science classes in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lyons, T. & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science. Understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. Armidale: University of New England.Google Scholar
  26. Marcus-Roberts, H. & Roberts, F. (1987). Meaningless Statistics. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12(4), 383–394.Google Scholar
  27. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foy, P. (with Olson, J. F., Erberber, E., Preuschoff, C., & Galia, J.) (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Science Report: Findings from IEAs Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, P., Blessing, J. & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mujtaba, T., Hoyles, C., Reiss, M. J., Stylianidou, F., & Riazi-Farzad, B. (2010). Mathematics and physics participation in the UK: Influences based on analysis of national survey results. British Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference 2010, September 2010.Google Scholar
  30. Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2013a). What sort of girl wants to study physics after the age of 16? Findings from a large-scale UK survey. International Journal of Science Education.Google Scholar
  31. Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2013b). Inequality in experiences of physics education: Secondary school girls’ and boys’ perceptions of their physics education and intentions to continue with physics after the age of sixteen. International Journal of Science Education.Google Scholar
  32. National Academy of Sciences: Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science. Social Problems, 52(4), 593–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osborne, J. F., 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
  35. Reid, N. (2003). Gender and physics. International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 509–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reiss, M. J. (2004). Students’ attitudes towards science: A long term perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 4(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reiss, M. J., Hoyles, C., Mujtaba, T., Riazi-Farzad, B., Rodd, M., Simon, S., et al (2011). Understanding participation rates in post-16 mathematics and physics: Conceptualising and operationalising the UPMAP Project. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodd, M., Mujtaba, T. & Reiss, M. J. (2010). Participation in mathematics post-18: Undergraduates’ stories. British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 30(1), 175–182.Google Scholar
  39. Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. & Jelicic, H. (2008). Effective pre-school and primary education 3–11 project (EPPE 3–11): Influences on children’s attainment and progress at the end of key stage 2: Social/behavioural outcomes in year 6. Research report DCSF-RR049. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 83–110). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sjøbeg, S. & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different cultures relate to science and technology? Results and perspectives from the project ROSE. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
  42. Strand, S. & Winston, J. (2008). Educational aspirations in inner city schools. Educational Studies, 34(4), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations