Journal of Science Education (과학교육연구지)

Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University (경북대학교 과학교육연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Exploratory Study of Middle School Students' Motivation in Science: Comparing a STEM Education Program in Korea and the USA

  • Lee, Hyonyong (Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Longhurst, Max L. (Utah State University) ;
  • Freeman, Michael K. (Utah State University) ;
  • Lee, Hyundong (Daegu National University of Education)
  • Received : 2019.02.25
  • Accepted : 2019.04.01
  • Published : 2019.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This exploratory study is aimed at exploring the validity of the Science Motivation Questionnaire (SMQ) developed for university students, to measure the science motivation of middle school students and analyze the differences on gender and country factors of SMQ. A total of 371 students participated in this study: 171 middle school students from the USA and 200 secondary students from Korea. All participants were enrolled in the STEM program and activities in Utah, USA (for US students) and at a Korean university institute for gifted and talented students (for Korean students). In this study, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and latent mean analysis were used to analyze the gender and country differences. The results indicated that the 25 items of SMQ scale were theoretically meaningful and valid for middle school students. The latent mean difference by gender indicated that male students have higher intrinsic motivation, career motivation, grade motivation, and self-determination than female students. Moreover, a significant difference exists in these factors between the two countries. Further findings reveal that Korean students scored higher than US students in terms of the aforementioned factors. This study will provide significant insights in and contribution to science motivation issues in STEM education and the development of design-based engineering programs.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2001). Atlas of science literacy I. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2007). Atlas of science literacy II. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics(STEM) subjects on students' learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM education, 12(5/6), 23-37.
  4. Bentler, M., & Bonett, G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  5. Bentler, M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  6. Britner, S. L. (2008). Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender differences in Life, Physical, and Earth Science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 955-970. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20249
  7. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long [Eds.], Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage.
  8. Bryan, R., Glynn, S., & Kittleson, J. (2011). Motivation, achievement, and advanced placement intent of high school students learning science. Science Education, 95, 1049-1065. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20462
  9. Byrne, M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  10. Campbell, T., Lee, H., Kwon, H., & Park, K. (2012). Student motivation and interests as proxies for forming STEM identities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(3), 532-540. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.3.532
  11. Carmines, E., & McIver, J. (1981). Analyzing Models with Unobserved Variables: Analysis of Covariance Structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt, & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  12. Choi, E. (2017). Study on how art-centered STEAM program influences the learner's creativity. Journal of Art Education, 48(0), 187-223. https://doi.org/10.35657/jae.2017.48..008
  13. Glynn, S., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning science: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1088-1107. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20181
  14. Glynn, S., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science motivation questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1) 127-146. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20267
  15. Glynn, S., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1159-1176. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20442
  16. Jeong, H., & Lee, H. (2017). Development and application of scientific inquiry-based STEAM education program for free-learning semester in middle school. Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 334-350. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.3.334
  17. Jung, J., Jeon, J., & Lee, H. (2015). Domestic and international experts' perception of policy and direction on STEAM education. Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 358-375. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2015.39.3.358
  18. Kane, M. A., Beals, C., Valeau, E. J., & Johnson, M. J. (2004). Fostering success among traditionally underrepresented student groups: Hartnell College's approach to implementation of the Math, Engineering, and Science Achievement (Mesa) program. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920490251944
  19. Kang, N.-H., Lee, N., Rho, M., & Yoo, J. (2018). Meta analysis of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics) program effect on student learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 38(6), 875-883.
  20. Kim, J. (2018). A study on the effects of science education STEAM program on augment reality for intellectual disabilities. Journal of Mental Retardation, 20(3), 151-175.
  21. Kline, B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
  22. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity [KOFAC]. (2012a). Teacher training program for STEAM education. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  23. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity [KOFAC]. (2012b). Introduction of STEAM education policy. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  24. Kwak, H., & Ryu, H. (2016). Analysis on the research trends in STEAM education. Journal of Science Education, 40(1), 72-89. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2016.40.1.72
  25. Kwon, H., & Lee, H. (2008). Motivation issues in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics(STEM) education: A meta-analytic approach. Secondary Education Journal, 56(3), 1-22.
  26. Kwon, H., Park, K., & Lee, H. (2009). Research trends on the integrative efforts in technology education: Reviews of the relevant journals. Secondary Education Journal, 57(1), 245-274. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2009.57.1.245
  27. Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics(STEM) Education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (RL33434).
  28. Ha, M., & Lee, J. (2012). Exploring the structure of science motivation components and differences in science motivation in terms of gender and preferred track. Secondary Education Research, 60(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2012.60.1.1
  29. Ha, M., Kim, M., Park, K., & Lee, J. (2012a). The analysis of differences in structure of natural science high school students' science learning motivation in terms of school year and gender. Secondary Education Research, 60(2), 365-384. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2012.60.2.365
  30. Ha, M., Kim, M., Park, K., & Lee, J. (2012b). The analysis of level and structure of natural science high school students' science motivation compared to general high school students'. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 866-878. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.866
  31. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: Author.
  32. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2005). Technological literacy for all. Reston, VA: Author.
  33. Jeon, J., & Lee, H. (2015). The development and application of STEAM education program based on systems thinking for high school students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 1007-1018. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.1007
  34. Lips D., & McNeill, J. B. (2009). A new approach to improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math education. Backgrounder, 2259, 1-10.
  35. Lee, E., & Tae, J. (2017). The effect of STEAM program based on design thinking on primary school pupil's convergent problem solving & interest in math-science. Journal of Curriculum Integration, 11(1), 143-162.
  36. Lee, H., Kwon, Y., Oh, H., Lee, H. (2011). Development and implementation of engineering design and scientific inquiry based STEM education program. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 301-326.
  37. Marsh, W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
  38. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2011). 2012 MEST policy report. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  39. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2012). Science Curriculum. Notification No.2011-361 of the MEST. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  40. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015). the 2015 revised national curriculum. Ministry of Education. Sejong, Korea: Author.
  41. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2016). STEAM education. Ministry of Education. Sejong, Korea: Author.
  42. National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  43. National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  44. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  45. National Research Council [NRC]. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  47. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for tomorrow's world. Volume 1: Analysis. Paris, France: Author.
  48. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What student know and can do - student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014). Paris, France: Author.
  49. Packenham, E., Balls, M., & Reiter, D. (2018). Helping students succeed in high school and on the postsecondary pathway: A report on the USU STARS! I GEAR UP program. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.30777/APJER.2018.1.1.02
  50. Park, H.-W., & Shin, Y.-J. (2012). Effects of science lesson applying STEAM education on self-efficacy, interest, and attitude towards science. Biology Education, 40(1), 132-146. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2012.40.1.132
  51. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, December/January, 20-26.
  52. Sanders, M., Kwon, H., Park, K., & Lee, H. (2011). Integrative STEM(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education: Contemporary trends and issues. Secondary Education Research, 59(3), 729-762. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2011.59.3.729
  53. Shin, M. (2018). Meta-analysis of the effects on the STEAM program for elementary school students. Journal of Curriculum Integration, 12(2), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.35304/JCI.12.2.03
  54. Son, M., Jeong, D., & Choi, W. (2017). Effects of nano-science based STEAM programs on the affective aspects of students under free semester courses. School Science Journal, 11(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.11.1.201702.77
  55. Song, K. (2014). The relation of intelligence, self-esteem, mathematical attitudes, and scientific attitudes of gifted students from low-income families. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 24(6), 1039-1051. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2014.24.6.1039
  56. Williams, J. (2011). STEM Education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26-35.
  57. Yoo, M., Park, G., Choi, J., Lim, M., Lee, J., Shin, M., Lee, C., Lee, Y., Yu, H., & Chung, H. (2016). The development of appropriate technology theme STEAM program for the elementary students and its application effects on creative thinking activity, scientific attitude and leadership. Journal of Science Education, 40(2), 144-165. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2016.40.2.144