Students' situational engagement profiles in formal and informal science learning environments

IF 4.5 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Patrick N. Beymer, Matthew J. Schell, Kimberly M. Alberts, Vicky Phun, Joshua M. Rosenberg, Jennifer A. Schmidt
{"title":"Students' situational engagement profiles in formal and informal science learning environments","authors":"Patrick N. Beymer,&nbsp;Matthew J. Schell,&nbsp;Kimberly M. Alberts,&nbsp;Vicky Phun,&nbsp;Joshua M. Rosenberg,&nbsp;Jennifer A. Schmidt","doi":"10.1002/tea.22017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Student engagement is widely considered to be a multidimensional construct consisting of behavioral, cognitive, and affective components. Recent research has examined student engagement in science learning contexts using holistic approaches that account for multidimensionality through the identification of engagement profiles. However, it is not yet clear whether identified science engagement profiles are consistent across different samples, different learning environments, or different modes of measurement. Using data from three extant datasets involving middle- and high-school aged youth, we explored the consistency of students' situational engagement profiles across science learning environments (formal and informal) and modes of measurement (experience sampling and end-of-class reports). Results from latent profile analyses of students' behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement identified four common profiles across the three datasets, though each dataset had its own unique profile solution (ranging from five to seven profiles). Consistent profiles across the three datasets included universally low, moderate, recreational, and full engagement. Three additional engagement profiles were identified (rational, purposeful, and busy engagement), though they emerged inconsistently across the samples. Findings speak to the applicability of conceptual frameworks of engagement to science learning contexts. Results are discussed considering environmental (formal vs. informal learning environments) and methodological considerations (experience sampling vs. end of class report).</p>","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":"62 6","pages":"1522-1545"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.22017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Student engagement is widely considered to be a multidimensional construct consisting of behavioral, cognitive, and affective components. Recent research has examined student engagement in science learning contexts using holistic approaches that account for multidimensionality through the identification of engagement profiles. However, it is not yet clear whether identified science engagement profiles are consistent across different samples, different learning environments, or different modes of measurement. Using data from three extant datasets involving middle- and high-school aged youth, we explored the consistency of students' situational engagement profiles across science learning environments (formal and informal) and modes of measurement (experience sampling and end-of-class reports). Results from latent profile analyses of students' behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement identified four common profiles across the three datasets, though each dataset had its own unique profile solution (ranging from five to seven profiles). Consistent profiles across the three datasets included universally low, moderate, recreational, and full engagement. Three additional engagement profiles were identified (rational, purposeful, and busy engagement), though they emerged inconsistently across the samples. Findings speak to the applicability of conceptual frameworks of engagement to science learning contexts. Results are discussed considering environmental (formal vs. informal learning environments) and methodological considerations (experience sampling vs. end of class report).

学生在正式和非正式科学学习环境中的情境投入概况
学生参与被广泛认为是一个由行为、认知和情感组成的多维结构。最近的研究使用整体方法检查了学生在科学学习环境中的参与度,该方法通过识别参与度概况来解释多维度。然而,目前尚不清楚确定的科学参与概况在不同的样本、不同的学习环境或不同的测量模式中是否一致。利用现有的三个涉及初高中青年的数据集的数据,我们探讨了学生在科学学习环境(正式和非正式)和测量模式(经验抽样和课后报告)中的情景参与概况的一致性。对学生行为、认知和情感参与的潜在概况分析结果确定了三个数据集中的四种常见概况,尽管每个数据集都有自己独特的概况解决方案(从5到7个概况)。三个数据集的一致概况包括普遍的低参与度、中等参与度、休闲参与度和完全参与度。我们还确定了另外三种参与特征(理性参与、有目的参与和忙碌参与),尽管它们在样本中出现的情况并不一致。研究结果表明,参与的概念框架适用于科学学习环境。结果讨论考虑环境(正式与非正式的学习环境)和方法考虑(经验抽样与下课报告)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Journal of Research in Science Teaching EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
19.60%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信