Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Out-of-school time programs focused on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) have proliferated recently because they are seen as having potential to appeal to youth and enhance STEM interest. Although such programs are not mandatory, youth are not always involved in making the choice about their participation and it is unclear whether youth’s involvement in the choice to attend impacts their program experiences. Using data collected from experience sampling, traditional surveys, and video recordings, we explore relationships among youth’s choice to attend out-of-school time programs (measured through a pre-survey) and their experience of affect (i.e., youth experience sampling ratings of happiness and excitement) and engagement (i.e., youth experience sampling ratings of concentration and effort) during program activities. Data were collected from a racially and ethnically diverse sample of 10–16 year old youth (n = 203; 50% female) enrolled in nine different summer STEM programs targeting underserved youth. Multilevel analysis indicated that choice and affect are independently and positively associated with momentary engagement. Though choice to enroll was a significant predictor of momentary engagement, positive affective experiences during the program may compensate for any decrements to engagement associated with lack of choice. Together, these findings have implications for researchers, parents, and educators and administrators of out-of-school time programming.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Bell, K. L., & O’Connor, T. G. (1994). Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65(1), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00743.x. PubMed
Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 967. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1687.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.). (pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.
Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756511.
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). The handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer Science. CrossRef
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Hazari, Z. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in stem. International Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.629455.
Dijksterhuis, A. (2010). Automaticity and the unconscious. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology 1, (228–267). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Bullock, B. M. (2004). Premature adolescent autonomy: Parent disengagement and deviant peer process in the amplification of problem behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 27(5), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.005. PubMed
Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0622.214.171.1242.
Efklides, A., & Petkaki, C. (2005). Effects of mood on students’ metacognitive experiences. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.010.
Elam, M. E., Donham, B. L., & Solomon, S. R. (2012). An engineering summer program for underrepresented students from rural school districts. Journal of STEM Education, 13(2), 35–44.
Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20078.
Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). STEM occupations: past, present, and future. Retrieved from Bureau of Labor Statistics Website: https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/pdf/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future.pdf.
Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out-of-school contexts: A multidimensional view of engagement. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.607401.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309598810.
Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.72.2.93-114.
Flowerday, T., & Shell, D. F. (2015). Disentangling the effects of interest and choice on learning, engagement, and attitude. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.003.
Fortus, D. (2014). Attending to affect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 821–835. https:// doi.org/10.1002/tea.21155. CrossRef
Frank, K. A., Maroulis, S. J., Duong, M. Q., & Kelcey, B. M. (2013). What would it take to change an inference? Using Rubin’s causal model to interpret the robustness of causal inferences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(4), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713493129.
Galotti, K. M. (1995). A longitudinal study of real-life decision making: Choosing a college. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(6), 459–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350090602.
Galotti, K. M. (1999). Making a “major” real-life decision: College students choosing an academic major. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06126.96.36.1999.
Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U., & Preckel, F. (2014). “My questionnaire is too long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.04.002.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. CrossRef
Kataoka, S., & Vandell, D. L. (2013). Quality of afterschool activities and relative change in adolescent functioning over two years. Applied Developmental Science, 17(3), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2013.804375.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002275.
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2007). The role of affect in student learning: A multi-dimensional approach to considering the interaction of affect, motivation, and engagement. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 107–124). San Diego, CA: Academic. CrossRef
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L, Wormington, S. V. & Ranellucci, J. (2016). Measuring affect in educational contexts: A Circumplex Approach. In M. Zembylas, P. A. Schutz (Eds.) Methodological Advances in Research on Emotion and Education. New York, NY: Springer US. .
McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Instrument development in the affective domain: School and corporate applications. 3rd edn. New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4614-7135-6 McLaughlin. CrossRef
Meinhardt, J., & Pekrun, R. (2003). Attentional resource allocation to emotional events: An ERP study. Cognition & Emotion, 17(3), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930244000039.
Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Jackson, C., Miller, M., Walcott, B., Little, D. L., Speler, L., Schooler, W., & Schroeder, D. C. (2014). Developing middle school students’ interests in stem via summer learning experiences: See blue stem camp. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12079.
Naftzger, N., Moroney, D., Schmidt, J., & Shumow, L. (2014). STEM interest and engagement study. National Science Foundation Grant No: DRL-1421198.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Building America’s Skilled Technical Workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23472.
Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 522–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030307.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270. PubMed
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019545.
Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Trimble, S. S., Pituch, K. A., & Freeman, J. L. (2017). Daily autonomy supporting or thwarting and students’ motivation and engagement in the high school science classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000214.
Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C., Steingut, R. R., Trimble, S. S., & Pituch, K. A. (2016). Daily interest, engagement, and autonomy support in the high school science classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.06.002. CrossRef
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christensen, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). New York, NY: Springer US. CrossRef
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Renninger, K. A. (2007). Interest and motivation in informal science learning. IEEE Computer Society Press. http://www.informalscience.com/researches/Renninger_Commissioned_Paper. pdf.
Reschly, A. L., Huebner, E. S., Appleton, J. J., & Antaramian, S. (2008). Engagement as flourishing: The contribution of positive emotions and coping to adolescents’ engagement at school and with learning. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20306.
Rosenberg, J. R., Xu, R., & Frank, K. A. (2018). konfound: Sensitivity analysis based on Rubin’s causal model. https://jrosen48.github.io/konfound/.
Schmidt, J. A., Rosenberg, J. M., & Beymer, P. N. (2018). A person‐in‐context approach to student engagement in science: Examining learning activities and choice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21409.
Shernoff, D. J., & Schmidt, J. A. (2008). Further evidence of an engagement–achievement paradox among U.S. high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 564–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9241-z.
Shernoff, D. J., & Vandell, D. L. (2007). Engagement in after-school program activities: Quality of experience from the perspective of participants. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(7), 891–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9183-5.
Shumow, L., Schmidt, J. A., & Zaleski, D. J. (2013). Multiple perspectives on student learning, engagement, and motivation in high school biology labs. The High School Journal, 96(3), 232–252. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2013.0010.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924.
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). New York, NY: Springer. CrossRef
Strati, A. D., Schmidt, J. A., & Maier, K. S. (2017). Perceived challenge, teacher support, and teacher obstruction as predictors of student engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000108.
Vandell, D. L., Warschauer, M., O’Cadiz, M. P., & Hall, V. (2008). Two year evaluation study of the Tiger Woods Learning Center: Volume I, II, III. Irvine, CA: Tiger Woods Foundation.
Yilmaz, M., Ren, J., Custer, S., & Coleman, J. (2010). Hands-on summer camp to attract k-12 students to engineering fields. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(1), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2009.2026366.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2003). Autonomy development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology (pp. 175–204). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
- Examining Relationships among Choice, Affect, and Engagement in Summer STEM Programs
Patrick N. Beymer
Joshua M. Rosenberg
Jennifer A. Schmidt
Neil J. Naftzger
- Springer US