What characterises the learners that choose to take the National Standard Science Test in Iceland?

1. What characterises the learners that choose to take the National Standard Science Test in Iceland? ESERA conference 2007, Malmö, Sweden 2007-08-22 C233 10:00 -12:00 Almar M. Halldórsson almar@namsmat.is Kristján Ketill Stefánsson kristjan@khi.is

2. Background • During the final three years of compulsory school (13-15 year old) children start making choices of whether they want to participate in the high stakes National Standard Science Test (NSTS) or not. • Depending on schools children usually have a choice of taking extra courses in science which serves partly as a preparation for the NSTS. • Approx. 50% of the learners choose to go through with the test. • This brings out individual and group differences in science education. Participation rates ‘07: Icelandic 93,4% Mathematics 91,0% English 87,5% Danish 71,9% Science 51,4% Social studies 39,1%

3. E-V Model(Eccles, 2005) Social and motivational factors that influence choices and performance

4. Method Expectation of Success (Can I do the task?) • Sample • 80% of all 15 year old learners in Iceland (N=4683) • Independent variables: • Expectations of success in science (self-concept of science ability) • (PISA questionnaire index) • Subjective task value of science (interest/enjoyment/personal value/ instrumental motivation) • (4 PISA questionnaire indices) • Dependent variables: • The choice to take the National Standard Test in Science (NSTS) in 10th grade. • Achievement in Science literacy (performance in PISA 2006) • Averages and regression Achievement-Related Choices and Performance • Subjective Task Value • (Do I want to do the task?) • - Interest • - Enjoyment • Personal value • Instrumental motivation

5. Findings • The choice of taking the NSTS • Subjective Task Value explains 19.1%-21.6% of the decision • Instrumental motivation and Interest 20.7% and 19.7% • Personal value and Enjoyment 21.6% and 19.1% • Expectations of success explain 19.7% of the decision • Achievement • Subjective Task Value explains 5.6%-14.2% of achievement • Instrumental motivation and Interest 5.6% and 9.2% • Personal value and Enjoyment 13.2% and 14.2% • Expectations of success explain 22.6% of achievement (Value-driven choice)

6. Groups 32% 14% 18% 36%

7. Teaching Implications (Urdan &Turner,2005) • Increased Subjective Task Value (Do I want to do the task?) • Promote acitve participation and student control • Select topics that are authentic and meaningful • Visits and practical activity that aim at increasing the instrumental value of Science Education (authors). • Increased Expectations of Success (Can I do the task?) • Provide moderatly challenging tasks that help learners see improvement • Specific feedback on progress and strategy (formative assessment) • Attributing performance to effort • Supportive and caring classroom community that makes learners feel valued and safe to take academic risks.

8. Main references Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I Like to Do It, I'm Able, and I Know I Am: Longitudinal Couplings Between Domain-Specific Achievement, Self-Concept, and Interest. Child Development, 78(2), 430-447. 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 (pp. 105-121). New York London: The Guilford Press. Eccles, J. S. (2006). A Motivational Perspective on School Achievement. In Optimizing Student Success in School With the Other Three Rs: Reasoning, Resilience, and Responsibility (pp. 199-224): Information Age Publishing. Kristján Ketill Stefánsson. (2006). "I just don't think it's me": A study on the willingness of Icelandic learners to engage in science related issues. University of Oslo, Oslo. OECD. (2005). Contextual Framework for PISA 2006 (draft version No. NPM(0510)5): OECD. Urdan, T., & Turner, J. C. (2005). Competence Motivation in the Classroom. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation (pp. 297-318). New York: The Guilford Press.

9. Findings • Willingness to engage in science (one of PISA 2006 questionnaire index) is highly related to choice of taking the NSTS • 85% of learners who are medium to highly willing to engage in science in the future also choose to take the NSTS. • 50% of learners who are less willing to engage also choose to take the NSTS. • 30% of learners who are not willing to engage in science in the future also choose to take the NSTS.

10. Findings (couplings) • Interest-Academic achievement • PISA 2006: r=0,30 • Exactly the same as found by a meta analysis conducted by Sciefele, Krapp and Schreyer (1993) (in Denissen, 2007) • Interest and domain specific self-concept of ability • PISA 2006: r=0.54 • The same as a meta analysis conducted by Lent et al. (1994) r=0.53 (in Denissen, 2007) • Self-concept of Abilty – Academic achievement • PISA 2006: r=0.48

11. Findings

12. Discussion • High levels of coupling • Increase proficiency • Contribute to a person’s sense of consistency and coherence • Low levels of coupling • Higher flexibility • Positive at young age and in future labor market situations • Should Science Education be proactive or reactive to high couplings in late elementary school when couplings are at their peak?

13. Discussion • If it is assumed that the willingness to engage in science is a prerequisite for increased science literacy the following can be inferred. • To increase the willingness to engage in science it is effective to emphasize the STV (Do I want to do the task?) as well as the SCA (Can I do the task?). • One part of the STV, the Instrumental value, correlates strongly with choice and weakly with achievement. Giving it a special relevance in answering the question: “Do I want to do the task?”. • To increase academic achievement among individuals already willing to engage in science it is effective to emphasize SCA (Can I do the task?). Proportionally less time can be devoted to the STV. • The performance oriented nature of traditioinal positivistic Science Education is likely to contribute to an increased coupling between Interest, SCA and Achivement leading to an early extreme renunciation of or engagement in Science Education.