A person‐in‐context approach to student engagement in science: Examining learning activities and choice

Schmidt, Jennifer; Rosenberg, Joshua M.; Beymer, Patrick N.

doi:10.1002/tea.21409

Cited by 123 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From this we determined the optimal number of clusters to be five (a coincidence of this study, and not a reflection of the number of unique codes, as the random data does not have an elbow at five). The clusters account for 70% of the variance in the data (64% of equipment use, 78% of paper and notebook use, 79% of laptop and personal device use, 73% of lab desktop computer use, and 59% of other activities), well above the 50% threshold used for a study of this type [11,12]. 2.…”

Section: B Cluster Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Who does what now? How physics lab instruction impacts student behaviors

Quinn¹,

McGill²,

Kelley³

et al. 2019

2018 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While laboratory instruction is a cornerstone of physics education, the impact of student behaviours in labs on retention, persistence in the field, and the formation of students' physics identity remains an open question. In this study, we performed in-lab observations of student actions over two semesters in two pedagogically different sections of the same introductory physics course. We used a cluster analysis to identify different categories of student behaviour and analyzed how they correlate with lab structure and gender. We find that, in lab structures which fostered collaborative group work and promoted decision making, there was a task division along gender lines with respect to laptop and equipment usage (and found no such divide among students in guided verification labs).

show abstract

Section: B Cluster Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Who does what now? How physics lab instruction impacts student behaviors

Quinn¹,

McGill²,

Kelley³

et al. 2019

2018 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to the specificity of interest, that is, pertaining to what a person is interested in, the use of school subjects for characterizing the content structure of students' interest in science is often considered too rough from a theoretical perspective. Additional aspects such as subject contents and themes, contexts (Häussler, Hoffmann, Langeheine, Rost, & Sievers, ), or activities (Schmidt, Rosenberg, & Beymer, ; Swarat et al, ) may be indispensable for describing profiles of interest in science. Such an integrated approach is provided by the adapted version of Holland's RIASEC model, allowing more precise insights into the development of interest and its connection to learning (Blankenburg, Höffler, & Parchmann, ; Dierks et al, , ).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowing more about things you care less about: Cross‐sectional analysis of the opposing trend and interplay between conceptual understanding and interest in secondary school chemistry

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of students' interest in school science activities, their understanding of central chemical concepts, and the interplay between both constructs across Grades 5–11 were analyzed in a cross‐sectional paper‐and‐pencil study (N = 2,510, mean age 11–17 years). Previous empirical findings indicate that students' knowledge increases over the time of secondary school while students' interest, especially in natural science subjects, tends to decrease. Concomitantly, there is evidence for an increase in the positive coupling between interest and knowledge across time. However, previous studies mainly rely on rather global measures, for example, school grades or general subject‐related interest, and focus on science as an integrated subject instead of specific disciplines, for example, chemistry. For this article, more proximal and differentiated measures for students' understanding of three chemical concepts (Chemical Reaction, Energy, Matter) and interest in seven dimensions of school science activities according to the RIASEC + N model (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional, and Networking; cf. Dierks, Höffler, & Parchmann, 2014) were applied. The results are in line with previous research indicating a general increase in conceptual understanding and a decline in students' interest for all school science activities. However, the interplay between conceptual understanding and interest differs across the seven dimensions. Interest in activities which are likely to promote cognitive activation (investigative, networking) or involving the communication of knowledge (social, enterprising, and networking) are increasingly connected to conceptual understanding, especially in upper secondary grades. Interest in guided hands‐on activities (realistic) which are typical in secondary science teaching, however, shows only small positive correlations to students' conceptual understanding across all grades. Hence, in upper‐secondary school, investigative, social, enterprising, and networking activities seem to provide opportunities to benefit most from the interrelation between students' interests and their understanding.

show abstract

“…When working on independent problems or tasks such as writing, calculating, solving problems, or working on a computer student engagement can increase (Shernoff et al, 2003;Wu & Huang, 2007). However, Schmidt et al (2017) find that independent work in secondary science classes is associated with lower levels of engagement.…”

Section: Science Classroom Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…When lecturing, a teacher presents new material or solves problems in front of the classroom (Lavonen, Angell, Byman, Henriksen, & Koponen, 2007). Previous ESM studies among U.S. students reveal that lecturing seems to be associated with decreased student situational engagement (Schmidt, Rosenberg, & Beymer, 2017;Shernoff et al, 2003).…”

Section: Science Classroom Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Laboratory work has been seen as an essential learning activity in science (Duit & Confrey, 1996;Millar, 2011). Prior studies indicate that when students are involved in laboratory activities, they experience higher levels of engagement than when tasked with individual work (Schmidt et al, 2017). But on its face, even though laboratory work has been shown to be an engaging activity, other findings show that it increases student engagement only when associated with contemporary problems (Abrahams, 2009).…”

Section: Science Classroom Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Science classroom activities and student situational engagement

Inkinen

Klager

Schneider

et al. 2018

International Journal of Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version. SCIENCE CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES Word count: Abstract (209), Main text (5721), Tables (490) Science Classroom Activities and Student Situational EngagementInkinen Janna a AbstractThis study examines the association between student situational engagement and classroom activities in secondary school science classrooms in Finland and the U.S. Situational engagement is conceptualized as times when students feel that a task is interesting to them, challenging, and yet that they have the skills to complete it (see Schneider et al., 2016). Data on situational engagement and classroom activities were obtained using the experience sampling method (ESM) from 247 Finnish students in 12 secondary science classrooms and 281 U.S. students in 18 secondary science classrooms. In both samples, students tend to be situationally engaged only a small proportion of the time during their science classes.However, Finnish students were more likely than U.S. students to report being situationally engaged. To investigate when students were most likely to report being situationally engaged, hierarchical logistic regression models were employed, suggesting that some classroom activities are associated with higher levels of student situational engagement than others.Finnish students were more likely to report being situationally engaged when calculating and presenting scientific information. In the U.S., students were more likely to report being situationally engaged while discussing scientific information and less likely when listening to the teacher. Results suggest that situational engagement is momentary and associated with specific science classroom activities.

show abstract

A person‐in‐context approach to student engagement in science: Examining learning activities and choice

Cited by 123 publications

References 69 publications

Who does what now? How physics lab instruction impacts student behaviors

Who does what now? How physics lab instruction impacts student behaviors

Knowing more about things you care less about: Cross‐sectional analysis of the opposing trend and interplay between conceptual understanding and interest in secondary school chemistry

Science classroom activities and student situational engagement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About