Students' self‐efficacy for science in different school systems

Abstract

The important role of self-efficacy (SE) in students' motivation, engagement, persistence, and academic achievements has been reconfirmed by ample research, both in general and for STEM disciplines. As most studies focused on traditional school systems, additional research is needed on how science SE develops in different educational environments, which was the goal of this study. Data were collected from 1979 students in Grades 5-9 from 19 traditional, Waldorf, and democratic schools in Israel. Students completed a questionnaire that assessed their science self-efficacy (SSE), general and academic selfefficacy (GASE), and the sources of their SSE: teachers', parents', and peers' social persuasions, vicarious experiences and mastery experiences. Results revealed that SSE and GASE differed in their levels and in the way they changed with grade. These differences, and variations in the roles of the various sources of SSE, appeared to be influenced by the schools' cultures and curricula. Quantitative results are accompanied by verbal illustrative examples from interviews with students and teachers.

“I'm just not that great at science”: Science self‐efficacy in arts and communication students

“…To date, science self-efficacy research has been mostly organized within disciplinary "pockets," in which researchers create and apply domain/field-specific assessment tools in examining self-efficacy within tightly defined disciplinary knowledge and skill sets (e.g., Chemers et al, 2011;Dalgety & Coll, 2006;Hiller & Kitsantas, 2016;Kardash, 2000). Findings from these studies parallel the broader academic self-efficacy literature, confirming the relationship between students' science-specific efficacy beliefs and their success in grade school and college-level science courses and programs (Britner & Pajares, 2006;Chemers et al, 2011;Dorfman & Fortus, 2019;Fencl & Scheel, 2005;Trujillo & Tanner, 2014;Villafañe et al, 2014;Zusho, Pintrich, & Coppola, 2003). This literature also speaks to the potential sources of science efficacy and the related instructional practices (Crippen & Earl, 2007;Gwilliam & Betz, 2001;Kardash, 2000;Kurbanoglu & Akim, 2010;Lent, Lopez, Brown, & Gore, 1996;Robnett et al, 2015;Usher & Pajares, 2008;Usher, Ford, Li, & Weidner, 2019) that might scaffold success, particularly for students from groups who are under-represented in STEM fields (Ainscough et al, 2016;Ballen et al, 2017;Chemers et al, 2011;Lindstrøm & Sharma, 2011;Talsma, Schüz, & Norris, 2019;Villafañe et al, 2014).…”

Exploring students’ science motivation across grade levels and the role of inductive reasoning in science motivation

“…From a socio-cognitive viewpoint, academic motivation is formed from both contextual factors and student cognition (Anderman & Dawson, 2011;Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Empirical studies (e.g., Dorfman & Fortus, 2019;Józsa et al, 2017) have indicated changing patterns of science motivation across grade levels. The general findings are that students' motivation tends to drop gradually as they move through the school system.…”

“…Hwang et al, 2016;Robinson et al, 2019) and cross-sectional studies (e.g. Dorfman & Fortus, 2019;Józsa et al, 2017), often offer a deeper understanding of individuals' differences in science motivation, which plays an important role in personalized support in enhancing children's academic motivation in particular contexts.…”

A Meta-analysis of University STEM Summer Bridge Program Effectiveness

“…Stereotype threat, or the psychosocial anxiety individuals may experience when they are concerned they will be judged based on the negative stereotypes about a group with which they identify (Steele and Aronson, 1995), may be especially salient: perceptions of stereotype threat by underrepresented minority STEM students have been linked to increased attrition to non-STEM majors (Beasley and Fischer, 2012). Bridge programs may be useful in addressing stereotype threat, because they can provide opportunities to gain STEM-related mastery experiences (Hernandez et al, 2013), which research has shown predicts STEM self-efficacy (e.g., Honicke and Broadbent, 2016;Dorfman and Fortus, 2019). Programs that offer diverse peer mentors may also be impactful, because diversity across peer mentoring in multiple STEM fields predicts higher diversity and successful graduation rates for underrepresented minority STEM students (Fox et al, 2009).…”