Advertisement

Predicting Science Engagement with Motivation and Teacher Characteristics: a Multilevel Investigation

  • Dekant Kıran
  • Semra Sungur
  • Sündüs Yerdelen
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the student and teacher-level predictors of Turkish middle school students’ engagement in science classes. Students’ engagement was examined in terms of agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement. The participants of the study were 134 Turkish science teachers and their 3394 grade 7 students. Separate multilevel models were specified for each dimension of students’ science engagement. Results of the HLM analyses indicated that dimensions of students’ science engagement were significantly predicted mostly by the student-level variables including science self-efficacy, mastery approach and avoidance goals, and performance approach goals. Teacher-level variables were influential only on the cognitive and emotional engagement. There were also cross-level interactions in predicting science engagement. Results were discussed in the light of related literature.

Keywords

Engagement Instructional goals Science education Self-efficacy Teacher motivation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was produced from Dekant Kıran’s doctoral dissertation.

References

  1. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261 Google Scholar
  2. Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21–37.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0978 Google Scholar
  3. Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(3), 269–298.Google Scholar
  4. Anderman, E. M., & Patrick, H. (2012). Achievement goal theory, conceptualization of ability/intelligence, and classroom climate. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 173–192). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_8 Google Scholar
  5. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  8. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, W. W., & Wong, Y. L. (2014). The relationship between goal orientation and academic achievement in Hong Kong: The role of context. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(1), 169–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0169-7 Google Scholar
  10. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Preface. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. v–viii). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  11. Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African-American youth: context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65(2), 493–506.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1131398 Google Scholar
  12. Demirtas, Z. (2010). Teachers’ job satisfaction levels. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1069–1073.Google Scholar
  13. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.Google Scholar
  14. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals, epistemological beliefs and need for closure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 535–551.Google Scholar
  15. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.Google Scholar
  16. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 Google Scholar
  17. Furlong, M. J., Whipple, A. D., Jean, G. S., Simental, J., Soliz, A., & Punthuna, S. (2003). Multiple contexts of school engagement: Moving toward a unifying framework for educational research and practice. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 99–113.Google Scholar
  18. Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 807–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00032-4 Google Scholar
  19. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479 Google Scholar
  20. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13.Google Scholar
  21. Gökçe, İ. (2006). Fen ve teknoloji dersi programı ile öğretmen kılavuzunun içsel olarak değerlendirilmesi ve uygulamada karşılaşılan sorunlar (Balıkesir Örneği) [Evaluation of the inner volume of the science and technology curriculum and teacher's guide and the problems faced in the practice (Balikesir Example)]. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.Google Scholar
  22. Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462–482.Google Scholar
  23. Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transforming misconceptions: Using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about biological evolution. Science Education, 97, 725–744.Google Scholar
  24. Hıdıroğlu, F. M. (2014). The role of perceived classroom goal structures, self-efficacy, and the student engagement in seventh grade students' science achievement (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  25. Hıdıroğlu, M., & Sungur, S. (2015). Predicting seventh grade students’ engagement in science by their achievement goals. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 16(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  26. Ho, C. L., & Au, W. T. (2006). Teaching satisfaction scale measuring job satisfaction of teachers. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(1), 172–185.Google Scholar
  27. Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 7–27.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behaviour. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 191–211.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158847 Google Scholar
  29. Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of perceived academic competence make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(4), 415–435.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0943 Google Scholar
  30. Kıran, D. (2010). A study on sources and consequences of elementary students’ self-efficacy beliefs in science and technology course (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  31. Kıran, D., & Sungur, S. (2012). Middle school students’ science self-efficacy and its sources: Examination of gender difference. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 619–630.Google Scholar
  32. Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258 Google Scholar
  33. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Student’s goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.Google Scholar
  34. Michaelowa, K., & Wittmann, E. (2008). The cost, satisfaction, and achievement of primary education-evidence from francophone sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Developing Areas, 41(1), 51–78.  https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2008.0028 Google Scholar
  35. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., Freeman, K. E., . . . Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  36. Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389–411.Google Scholar
  37. Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and performance goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61–75.Google Scholar
  38. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2017a). PISA national reports. Retrieved on December 22, 2017 from http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/?page_id=22
  39. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2017b). TIMMS national report. Retrieved on December 22, 2017 from http://timss.meb.gov.tr/?page_id=25
  40. Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2009). The joint influence of personal achievement goals and classroom goal structures on achievement-relevant outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 432–447.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student from secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14–24.Google Scholar
  43. Nolen, S. B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation, and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 347–368.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10080 Google Scholar
  44. Ololube, N. P. (2006). Teachers job satisfaction and motivation for school effectiveness: An assessment. Essays in Education, 18, 1–19.Google Scholar
  45. Özmen, Ş. G. (2003). Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Surveying of science teachers opinions on constructivist learning approach] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  46. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543 Google Scholar
  47. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/eff.html
  48. Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 339–367). Greenwich: IAP.Google Scholar
  49. Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Writing and science achievement goals of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406–422.Google Scholar
  50. Pamuk, S., Sungur, S., & Oztekin, C. (2017). A multilevel analysis of students’ science achievements in relation to their self-regulation, epistemological beliefs, learning environment perceptions, and teachers’ personal characteristics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1423–1440.Google Scholar
  51. Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83–98.Google Scholar
  52. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.Google Scholar
  53. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 810–813.Google Scholar
  54. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150–167.Google Scholar
  55. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690 Google Scholar
  57. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002 Google Scholar
  58. Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Gray, P. (2004). Prior student achievement, collaborative school processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 163–188.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503689 Google Scholar
  59. Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?”: Adolescent perceptions of costs and benefits of help-seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–341.Google Scholar
  60. Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaption, and adjustment: theory, research, and application (pp. 281–303). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  61. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  62. Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  63. Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219–236). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_10 Google Scholar
  64. Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  65. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teachers’ feeling of belonging, exhaustion, and job satisfaction: The role of school goal structure and value consonance. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 24(4), 369–385.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.544300 Google Scholar
  66. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.Google Scholar
  67. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5), 649–659.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00012-3 Google Scholar
  68. Sungur, S., & Senler, B. (2009). An analysis of Turkish high school students' metacognition and motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(1), 45–62.Google Scholar
  69. Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: The role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 243–258.Google Scholar
  70. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 Google Scholar
  71. Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 597–625). New York: Springer International.Google Scholar
  72. Urdan, T. (2004). Using multiple methods to assess students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures. European Psychologist, 9(4), 222–231.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.9.4.222 Google Scholar
  73. van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2014). Engaging students: the role of teacher beliefs and interpersonal teacher behavior in fostering student engagement in vocational education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 21–32.Google Scholar
  74. Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105, 294–318.Google Scholar
  75. Yerdelen, S. (2013). Multilevel investigations of students’ cognitive and affective learning outcomes and their relationships with perceived classroom learning environment and teacher effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science EducationGaziosmanpasa UniversityTokatTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science EducationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science EducationKafkas UniversityKarsTurkey

Personalised recommendations