Love It or Leave It: Norwegian Students' Motivations and Expectations for Postcompulsory Physics

Science Education

Volumn 97, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 550-573

  Bøe, Maria Vetleseter ^a   Henriksen, Ellen Karoline ^b  

^a Norwegian Centre for Science Education   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879314542     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21068     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Adams, W. K., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N. D., & Wieman, C. E. (2006). New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. Physical Review special topics. Physics Education Research, 2(1), 1-14.
2. American Institute of Physics. (2011). Female students in high school physics. Results from the 2008-2009 nationwide survey of high school physics teachers. College Park, MD: Author.
3. Anderson, J. O., Chiu, M.-h., & Yore, L. D. (2010). First cycle of PISA (2000-2006)-international perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 1573-1774.
4. Angell, C., Bungum, B., Henriksen, E. K., Kolstø, S. D., Persson, J., & Renstrøm, R. (2011). Fysikkdidaktikk [physics education]. Kristiansand, Norway: Høyskoleforlaget AS-Norwegian Academic Press.
5. Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils' and teachers' views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 5(88), 683-706.
6. Angell, C., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2003). Hvorfor lære fysikk? Det kan andre ta seg av! Fysikkfaget i norsk utdanning: Innhold-oppfatninger-valg [Why learn physics? Others can take care of that! Physics in Norwegian education: Content-perceptions-choices]. In D. Jorde & B. Bungum (Eds.), Naturfagdidaktikk. Perspektiver, forskning, utvikling [Science education. Perspectives, research and development] (pp. 165-198). Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.
7. Angell, C., Lie, S., & Rohatgi, A. (2011). TIMSS advanced 2008: Fall i fysikk-kompetanse i Norge og Sverige [TIMSS advanced 2008: Decline in physics competence in Norway and Sweden]. NorDiNa, 7(1), 17-31.
8. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
9. Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students' attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975-1998.
10. Bøe, M. V. (2012a). Science choices in Norwegian upper secondary school: What matters? Science Education, 96(1), 1-20.
11. Bøe, M. V. (2013). What's in it for me? Norwegian students' choices of post-compulsory science in an expectancy-value perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
12. Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people's achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 37-71.
13. Carlone, H. B. (2003). Innovative science within and against a culture of "achievement." Science Education, 87, 307-328.
14. Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls' access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392-414.
15. Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2003). Student review of the science curriculum. Major findings. London: Planet Science; Institute of Education, University of London; Science Museum.
16. Cleaves, A. (2005). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 471-486.
17. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
18. Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, Singapore, March 8-10, 2000.
19. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29.
20. Danielsson, A. T. (2012). Exploring woman university physics students "doing gender" and "doing physics." Gender and Education, 24(1), 25-39.
21. Danish Evaluation Institute [EVA]. (2001). Fysik i skolen-skolen i fysik [Physics in school-school in physics]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.
22. Dobson, I. R. (2007). Sustaining science: University science in the twenty-first century. A study commissioned by the Australian Council of Deans of Science. Fairfield, Victoria, Australia: Centre for Population and Urban Research and the Educational Policy Institute.
23. Dolin, J. (2002). Fysikfaget i forandring. Læring og undervisning i fysik i gymnasiet med fokus på dialogiske processer, autencitet og kompetenceudvikling [School physics in a process of change]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
24. Drury, C., & Allen, A. (2002). Task force on the physical sciences-Report and recommendations. Dublin, Ireland: Department of Education and Science.
25. Duit, R., Niedderer, H., & Schecker, H. (2007). Teaching physics. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research of science education (pp. 599-629). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Eccles, J. (2007). Where are all the women? In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren't more women in science? (pp. 199-209). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27. Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78-89.
28. Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: W. H. Friedman.
29. Eccles, J., Barber, B., & Jozefowicz, D. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In W. B. S. Jr., J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 153-192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
30. Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
31. European Round Table of Industrialists. (2009). Societal changes: Mathematics, science & technology education report. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
32. European Union. (2009). She figures 2009-statistics and indicators on gender equity in science. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
33. Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., & Leese, M. (2001). Cluster analysis. London: Arnold.
34. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.
35. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
36. Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain (2nd ed.). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
37. Hasse, C., & Trentemøller, S. (2008). Break the pattern! A critical enquiry into three scientific workplace cultures: Hercules, caretakers and worker bees. Tartu, Estonia: Tartu University Press.
38. Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development, comparison with students' interests, and impact on students' achievement and self-concept. Science Education, 84(6), 689-705.
39. Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls' interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870-888.
40. Häussler, P., Hoffmann, L., Langeheine, R., Rost, J., & Sievers, K. (1998). A typology of students' interest in physics and the distribution of gender and age within each type. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 223-238.
41. Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Tai, R. H. (2008). Gender differences in the high school and affective experiences of introductory college physics students. The Physics Teacher, 46(7), 423-427.
42. 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.
43. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
44. Hipkins, R., & Bolstad, R. (2005). Staying in science. Student participation in secondary education and on transition to tertiary studies. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
45. Hutchinson, J., Stagg, P., & Bentley, K. (2009). STEM careers awareness timelines: Attitudes and ambitions towards science, technology, engineering and maths. Derby, England: International Centre for Guidance Studies, University of Derby.
46. IBM. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics 19.0. Armonk, New York: Author.
47. Industry Canada. (2007). Mobilizing science and technology to Canada's advantage: Executive summary. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
48. International Labour Organization. (2008). ISCO International Standard Classification of Occupations. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved May 6, 2011, from http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/index.htm.
49. Jensen, F., & Sjaastad, J. (2013). A Norwegian out-of-school mathematics project's influence on secondary students' STEM motivation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, DOI: 10.1007/s10763-013-9401-4.
50. Kjærnsli, M., & Lie, S. (2011). Students' preference for science careers: International comparisons based on PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 121-144.
51. Kozoll, R. H., & Osborne, M. D. (2004). Finding meaning in science: Lifeworld, identity, and self. Science Education, 88, 157-181.
52. Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383-409.
53. Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381-395.
54. Krogh, L. B., & Thomsen, P. V. (2005). Studying students' attitudes towards science from a cultural perspective but with a quantitative methodology: Border crossing into the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 281-302.
55. Kulas, J. T., Stachowski, A. A., & Haynes, B. A. (2008). Middle response functioning in Likert-responses to personality items. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 251-259.
56. Lie, S., Angell, C., & Rohatgi, A. (2010). Fysikk i fritt fall? TIMSS advanced 2008 i videregående skole [Physics in free fall? TIMSS advanced 2008 in upper secondary school]. Oslo, Norway: Unipub.
57. Lindstrøm, C., & Sharma, M. D. (2011). Self-efficacy of first year university physics students: Do gender and prior formal instruction in physics matter? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 19(2), 1-19.
58. Lyons, T. (2006). The puzzle of falling enrolments in physics and chemistry courses: Putting some pieces together. Research in Science Education, 36, 285-311.
59. Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science. Understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. Armidale, NSW, Australia: University of New England.
60. Madsen, L. M., Holmegaard, H. T., & Ulriksen, L. (in preparation). Being a woman in a man's place or being a man in a woman's place: Insights into students' experiences at science and engineering universities. In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education.
61. Maltese, A., & Tai, R. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 5(5), 229-685.
62. Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students' views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363-381.
63. Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls and physics: Continuing barriers to "belonging." The Curriculum Journal, 17(3), 281-305.
64. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01).
65. National Science Foundation. (2006). Women, minorities and people with disabilities in science and engineering. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 8, 2013, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.
66. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2009a). Elevers fagvalg i videregående opplæring 2008-2009 [Students' upper secondary subject choices 2008-2009]. Oslo, Norway: Author.
67. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2009b). Skolefakta-talet på elevar programfag [School facts-number of students in programme subjects]. Oslo, Norway: Author. Retrieved February 5, 2013, from http://skoleporten.udir.no/rapportvisning.aspx?enhetsid=00&vurderingsomrade=32&underomrade=35&skoletype=1.
68. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2010). Realfag for framtida. Strategi for styrking av realfagene 2010-2014 [Science for the future. Strategy for strengthening mathematics, science and technology (MST) 2010-2014.]. Oslo, Norway: Author.
69. Norwegian Social Science Data Services. (2009). Studentstatistikk for 2009 [Student Statistics 2009]. Bergen, Norway: Author.
70. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006: Volume 2 data. Paris: Author. Retrieved May 8, 2013, from http://www.oecd-library.org/education/pisa-2006_9789264040151-en.
71. OECD. (2008). Encouraging student interest in science and technology studies. Paris: Global Science Forum.
72. Ogura, Y. (2005). Situation and problems of decrease of Japanese students in science and technology fields. Paper presented at the OECD/Japan Seminar, Tokyo, June 23-24, 2005.
73. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.
74. 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.
75. Ramberg, I. (2006). Realfag eller ikke? Elevers motivasjon for valg og bortvalg av realfag i videregående opplæring [Science and mathematics or not? Students' motivation for choosing or not choosing science and mathematics in upper secondary school]. Oslo, Norwat: NIFU STEP-Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education.
76. Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. A. (2002). Attitudes towards physics. Research in Science & Technology Education, 20(1), 67-81.
77. Rødseth, S., & Bungum, B. (2010). Hva inspirerer fysikkstudier? En undersøkelse av begynnerstudenter på fysikk [What inspires for physics studies? An investigation of first-year students in physics]. NorDiNa, 6(1), 3-15.
78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
79. Scantlebury, K., & Baker, D. (2007). Gender issues in science education research: Remembering where the difference lies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 257-285). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
80. Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a rose-garden. Norwegian youth's orientation towards science-seen as signs of late modern identities. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
81. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth's identity construction-two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 231-247). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: SensePublishers.
82. 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.
83. Stine, D. D., & Matthews, C. M. (2009). The U.S. science and technology workforce. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
84. Taconis, R., & Kessels, U. (2009). How choosing science depends on students' individual fit to "science culture." International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1115-1132.
85. Ulriksen, L., Madsen, L. M., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2010). What do we know about explanations for drop out/opt out among young people from STM higher education programmes? Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 209-244.
86. Urry, M. (2008). Are photons gendered? In L. Schiebinger (Ed.), Gendered innovations in science and engineering. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
87. Warrington, M., & Younger, M. (2000). The other side of the gender gap. Gender and Education, 12(4), 493-508.
88. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.