Keeping Pace: Educational Choice Motivations and First-Year Experiences in the Words of Italian Students

Chapter

Abstract

Science and technology are among the most important disciplines for economic and social development. However, in recent years in Italy the number of students abandoning their studies in scientific faculties before the final examination is still significant. In addition, those who enroll on these courses of study frequently opt out of them at an early stage in order to move to other subjects. There are several causes for drop-out or migration to other courses of study. In this chapter we identify some factors that influence student retention in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) higher education by using quantitative and qualitative IRIS survey data from 2,667 Italian students. We begin by presenting theoretical and empirical perspectives from recent studies and by analyzing the science education literature. We then use quantitative data to examine students’ experiences, with a particular focus on interest, social relations, learning processes and working conditions at university. The second part of the chapter features an analysis of factors crucial for course abandonment which considers qualitative data on those students who assess their course selection negatively. Finally, we propose approaches that might sustain student motivation, with particular emphasis on external factors which might reduce drop-out and opt-out rates.

Keywords

Female Student Educational Choice Italian Student Italian Male Iris Survey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Almalaurea. (2011) Condizione Occupazionale dei laureati, marzo 2011 – Indagine del Consorzio Interuniversitario AlmaLaurea, data ultimo aggiornamento: 10/03/2011.Google Scholar
  2. Beier, M. E., & Rittmayer, A. D. (2009). Predictors of commitment and success in STEM majors. Paper and poster presented at the ADVANCE research symposium at Rice University. Houston, TX.Google Scholar
  3. Bizzo, N., Kawasaki, C. S., Ferracioli, L., & Rosa, V. L. (Eds.). (2002). Rethinking science and technology education to meet the demands for future generations in a changing world. Sao Paulo: International Organization for Science and Technology Education.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bucchi, M. (2006). Scegliere il mondo che vogliamo. Cittadini, politica, tecno scienza. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
  6. Dove, A. (2010). Science education crisis intervention. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., et al. (1983). Expectations, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  11. Fasanella, A., & Tanucci, G. (2006) Orientamento e carriera universitaria. Ingressi ed abbandoni in cinque Facoltà dell'Università di Roma “La Sapienza” nel nuovo assetto didattico, Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  12. Felice, A., et al. (2005). L’accompagnamento per contrastare la dispersione universitaria. Mentoring e tutoring a sostegno degli studenti. Roma: Isfol.Google Scholar
  13. Flash Eurobarometer. (2008). Young people and science, series n. 239, analytic Report, The Gallup Organisation.Google Scholar
  14. Guay, F., Marsh, H. W., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspective on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 124–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Illeris, K., Katznelson, N., Simonsen, B., & Ulriksen, L. (2002). Ungdom, identitet og uddannelse. Frederiksberg: Center for Ungdomsforskning, Roskilde Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, M. G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher–student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu, F. (2006). School culture and gender. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), The Sage handbook of gender and education. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections: A report to the Nuffield Foundation. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  20. Sjøberg, 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, 1–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Observa Science in SocietyVicenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations