4.4 Article

Families support their children's success in science learning by influencing interest and self-efficacy

期刊

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 450-472

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21251

关键词

family influence; science learning; interest and self-efficacy; choice and engagement

资金

  1. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation [2829, 3341]
  2. National Science Foundation [DRL-1348468]
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources [1348666] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Division Of Research On Learning [1348666] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Research On Learning
  6. Direct For Education and Human Resources [1348468] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How is a child's successful participation in science learning shaped by their family's support? We focus on the critical time period of early adolescents, testing (i) whether the child's perception of family support is important for both choice preferences to participate in optional learning experiences and engagement during science learning, and (ii) whether the effects on choice preferences and engagement are mediated through effects on child interest and self-efficacy in science. Structural equation modeling is applied to data from two different contexts, one examining engagement during a science and technology center visit and the other examining engagement and learning during classroom instruction. Models from both datasets suggest that early adolescents' perceived family support for learning is associated with their choices for and engagement in science learning, and that these effects are mediated by effects on child interest and self-efficacy in science. Further, children's family physical resources (e.g., available learning spaces and materials) predicts their perceived family support, but is not separately connected to either interest or self-efficacy. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53: 450-472, 2016

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据