Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Languages: English
Types: Article

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: education
Given international concerns about students’ pursuit (or more correctly, non-pursuit) of courses and careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), this study is about achieving a better understanding of factors related to high school students’ engagement in science. The study builds on previous secondary analyses of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) datasets for New Zealand and Australia. For the current study, we repeated these analyses to compare patterns of science engagement and science literacy for male and female students in Canada and Australia. The study’s secondary analysis revealed that for all PISA measures included under the conceptual umbrella of engagement in science (i.e., interest, enjoyment, valuing, self-efficacy, self-concept, and motivation), 15-year-old students in Australia lagged their Canadian counterparts to varying, albeit modest, degrees. Our retrospective analysis further shows, however, that gender equity in science engagement and science literacy is evident in both Canadian and Australian contexts. Additionally, and consistent with previous findings for indigenous and non-indigenous students in New Zealand and Australia, we found that for male and female students in both countries, the factor most strongly associated with variations in engagement in science was the extent to which students participate in science activities outside of school. In contrast, and again for both Canadian and Australian students, the factors most strongly associated with science literacy were students’ socioeconomic backgrounds, and the amount of formal time spent doing science. The implications of these results for science educators and researchers are discussed.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Cohen, J., (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
    • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    • DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
    • Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. (2012). Mathematics, engineering, & science in the national interest (Office of the Chief Scientist). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
    • DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2011). Young Children's Aspirations in Science: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable, International Journal of Science Education, DOI:10.1080/09500693.2011.608197
    • Fensham, P. J. (2007). Interest in science: Lessons and non-lessons from TIMSS and PISA. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 3-10). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
    • 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.
    • Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., &, & Rennie, L. (2001). The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of Science in Australian Schools. Department of Education, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia
    • Gungor, A., Eryilmaz, A., & Fakioglu, T. (2007). The relationship of freshmen's physics achievement and their related affective characteristics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(8), 1036-1056.
    • Hackling, M., Peers, S. & Prain, V. (2007). Primary Connections: Reforming science teaching in Australian primary Schools. Teaching Science 55(3), 12-17
    • Handelsman, J., Cantor, N., Carnes, M., Denton, D., Fine, E., Grosz, B., et al. (2005). More Women in Science. Science, 309(5738), 1190-1191.
    • Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978-1003.
    • Head, J. (1985). The Personal Response to Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
    • Hyde, J. & Linn, M. (2006). Gender similarities in Mathematics and Science. Science, 314(5799), 599-600.
    • Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
    • Jones, G., Taylor, A. & Forrester, J. H. (2010). Developing a Scientist: A retrospective look. International Journal of Science Education, doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.523484
    • Lin, H.-s., Lawrenz, F., Lin, S.-F., & Hong, Z.-R. (2012). Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science-related activities. Public Understanding of Science.
    • Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation. Science, 330 (6008), 1234-1237.
    • National Research Council (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education, Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council of the National Academies
    • Nieswandt, M. (2008). Attitude towards science: A review of the field. In Alsop, S. (Ed.) Beyond Cartesian Dualism: Encountering Affect in the Teaching and Learning of Science (pp. 41- 52). Springer.
    • OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publishing.
    • OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: OECD Publishing.
    • OECD. (2009). PISA Data Analysis Manual (SPSS Second Edition). Paris: Author.
    • Ogura, Y. (2006). Graph of Student Attitude v Student Attainment. Based on data from: Martin, M.O. et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. National Institute for Educational Research: Tokyo.
    • Osborne, J., 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.
    • Perry, L. & McConney, A. (2011). Achievement gaps by student and school socio-economic status: a comparison of Australia and Canada. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, November 27-December 1, Hobart.
    • Rennie, L. (2010). Gender still matters in Australian Schooling. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 100-111. http://genderandset.open.ac.uk
    • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921.
    • Sagebiel, F., & Vázquez, S. (2010). Meta-Analysis of Gender and Science Research Topic Report: Stereotypes and Identity. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
    • Schreiner, C., & Sjoberg, S. (2004). ROSE: the relevance of science education: sowing the seeds of ROSE (Oslo, Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo).
    • Schwarz, B & de Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, (2-3), 297-313.
    • Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2010) Mathematics and Science Achievement: Effects of motivation, interest and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95:6, 323-332. DOI: 10.1080/00220670209596607.
    • Sjaastad, J. (2012) Sources of Inspiration: The role of significant persons in young people's choice of science in higher education, International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1615-1636.
    • Swarat, S., Ortony, A. & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity Matters: Understanding Student Interest in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 49, (4), 515-537.
    • Symington, D. & Tytler, R. (2004) Community leaders' views of the purposes of science in the compulsory years of schooling. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1403-1418.
    • Tamir, P., Stavi, R., & Ratner, N., (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: assessment and learning, Journal of Biological Education, Volume 33, Issue 1.
    • Thomson, S. & De Bortoli, L. (2008). Exploring Scientific Literacy: How Australia measures up. The PISA 2006 survey of students' scientific, reading and mathematical literacy skills. http://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/2.
    • Tran, N. A. (2011). The Relationship between Students' Connections to Out-of-School Experiences and Factors Associated with Science Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1625-1651.
    • Tytler, R., Osborne, J. F., Williams, G., Tytler, K., Clark, J. C., Tomei, A., et al. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the Primary-Secondary school transition. A review of the literature concerning supports and barriers to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics engagement at Primary-Secondary transition. Commissioned by the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Melbourne: Deakin University.
    • Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2010). Student Attitudes and Aspirations towards Science. In Fraser B., Tobin K. & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education: Springer.
    • von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E., & Mislevy, R.J. (2009). What are plausible values and why are they useful? IERI Monograph Series Volume 2.
    • Woods-McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2013). Science Engagement and Literacy: A Retrospective Analysis for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Students in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 233-252. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9265-y
    • Wu, M. (2005). The role of plausible values in large-scale surveys. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(2-3), 114-128
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article