Gender Differences in Factors Affecting Science Performance of Eighth Grade Taiwan Students

Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 445-456

  Tsai, Liang Ting ^a   Yang, Chih Chien ^a   Chang, Yu Jen ^b  

^a NATIONAL TAICHUNG UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL CENTRAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Multiple group analysis; Science attitude; Science performance; TIMSS; Valuing science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929161682     PISSN: 01195646     EISSN: 22437908     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40299-014-0196-z     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Aiken, L. S., Stein, J. A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Structural equation analysis of clinical subpopulation differences and comparative treatment outcomes: Characterizing the daily lives of drug addicts. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,62(3), 488–499.
2. Akpinar, E., Yildiz, E., Tatar, N., & Ergin, O. (2009). Students’ attitudes toward science and technology: An investigation of gender, grade level, and academic achievement. In H. Uzunboylu & N. Cavus (Eds.), World conference on educational sciences—New trend sand issues in educational sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 2804–2808). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Bv.
3. Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling,12(1), 41–75.
4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
5. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema,20, 872–882.
6. Byrne, B., Shavelson, R., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin,105, 456–466.
7. Byrne, B. M., & Stewart, S. M. (2006). The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling,13(2), 287–321.
8. Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. L. (1997). The effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual student academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research,90, 269–277.
9. Caleon, I. S., & Subramaniam, R. (2008). Attitudes towards science of intellectually gifted and mainstream upper primary students in Singapore. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(8), 940–954.
10. Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main1999/2000469.pdf.
11. Chang, C. Y., & Cheng, W. Y. (2008). Science achievement and students’ self-confidence and interest in science: A Taiwanese representative sample study. International Journal of Science Education,30(9), 1183–1200.
12. Chen, S. Y., Chang, Y. J., & Ko, H. W. (2011). The influence of parental education level, parental reading attitude, and current home reading activities on student s’ reading attainment: Findings from the PIRLS 2006. Bulletin of Educational Psychology,43, 357–376.
13. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling,9(2), 233–255.
14. Chiu, M. S. (2011). Effects of a women-in-sciences/men-in-humanities intervention on Taiwanese adolescents’ attitudes towards learning science. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,20(2), 322–335.
15. Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys’ and girl’ interests in science: Have they changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education,22(6), 557–570.
16. Fan, X., & Sivo, S. (2005). Evaluating the sensitivity and generalizability of SEM fit indices while controlling for severity of model misspecification. Structural Equation Modeling,12(3), 343–367.
17. Foy, P., & Olson, J. F. (2009). TIMSS 2007 user guide for the international database. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
18. George, R. (2006). A cross-domain analysis of change in students’ attitudes toward science and attitudes about the utility of science. International Journal of Science Education,28(6), 571–589.
19. George, R., & Kaplan, D. (1998). A structural model of parent and teacher influences on science attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence from NELS: 88. Science Education,82, 93–109.
20. Graig, J., & Ayres, D. (1988). Does primary science affect girls’ and boys’ interest in secondary science? School Science Review,69, 417–426.
21. Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Hong, Z. R. (2010). Effects of a collaborative science intervention on high achieving students’ learning anxiety and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education,32(15), 1971–1988.
23. Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2011). An investigation of the students’ personality traits and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education,33(7), 1001–1028.
24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6, 1–55.
25. Jabor, M. K., Machtmes, K., Kungu, K., Buntat, Y., & Nordin, M. S. (2011). Does parent educational status matter on the students’ achievement in science? Paper presented in the 2011 International Conference on Social Science and Humanity, Singapore.
26. Kalender, I., & Berberoglu, G. (2009). An assessment of factors related to science achievement of Turkish students. International Journal of Science Education,31(10), 1379–1394.
27. Kind, P. M., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. (2007). Developing attitudes toward science measures. International Journal of Science Education,29(7), 871–893.
28. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
29. Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). An investigation of teacher impact on student inquiry science performance using a hierarchical linear model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,47(7), 807–819.
30. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
31. Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in the tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology,93, 568–592.
32. Mohammadpour, E. (2013). A three-level multilevel analysis of Singaporean eighth-graders science achievement. Learning and Individual Differences,26, 212–220.
33. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus User´s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
34. Myrberg, E., & Rosén, M. (2006). Reading achievement and social selection into independent schools in Sweden—Results from IEA PIRLS 2001. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,50(2), 185–205.
35. Myrberg, E., & Rosén, M. (2008). A path model with mediating factors of parents’ education on students’ reading achievement in seven countries. Educational Research and Evaluation,14(6), 507–520.
36. Olson, J. F., Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (2008). TIMSS 2007 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
37. Ozel, M., Caglak, S., & Erdogan, M. (2013). Are affective factors a good predictor of science achievement? Examining the role of affective factors based on PISA 2006. Learning and Individual Differences,24, 73–82.
38. Papanastasiou, E. C., & Zembylas, M. (2004). Differential effects of science attitudes and science achievement in Australia, Cyprus, and the USA. International Journal of Science Education and Technology,26(3), 259–280.
39. Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. A. (2002). Attitudes toward physics. Research in Science & Technological Education,20(1), 67–81.
40. Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock & A. Satorra (Eds.), Innovations in multivariate statistical analyses. A festschrift for Heinz Neudecker (pp. 233–247). London: Kluwer Academic.
41. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online,8(2), 23–74.
42. Senler, B., & Sungur, S. (2009). Parental influence on students’ self-concept, task value beliefs, and achievement in science. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,12(1), 106–117.
43. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
44. Teo, T. (2010). Establishing gender structural invariance of technology acceptance model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,19(2), 311–320.
45. Teo, T., & Sing, C. C. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the conception for teaching and learning questionnaire (CTLQ). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,17(2), 215–224.
46. Teo, T., Tsai, L. T., & Yang, C. C. (2013). Applying structural education modeling in educational research: An introduction. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Applications of structural equation modeling in educational research and practice (pp. 3–21). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
47. Thomson, S. (2008). Examining the evidence from TIMSS: Gender differences in year 8 science achievement in Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation,34, 73–81.
48. Tsai, L. T., & Yang, C. C. (2012). Improving measurement invariance assessments in survey research with missing data by novel artificial neural network. Expert Systems with Application,39, 10456–10464.
49. Tsai, L. T., & Yang, C. C. (2013). Evaluating latent interaction effects by model-based Sattora–Bentler scaled Chi square test and path-based Z-test. Chinese Journal of Psychology,55(2), 41–54.
50. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,3(1), 4–69.
51. Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2012). Gender differences in student motivation and self-regulation in science learning: A multi-group structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,10(6), 1347–1368.
52. Woods, C. M., & Grimm, K. J. (2011). Testing for nonuniform differential item functioning with multiple indicator multiple cause models. Applied Psychological Measurement,35(5), 339–361.