nach oben

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Erschienen in:

07.06.2015

How are students’ attitudes related to learning outcomes?

verfasst von: Mika Metsärinne, Manne Kallio

Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This article is a part of a research project aimed to find out how different background variables are related to learning outcomes in technology education related to the school subject Sloyd (craft). The research question of this article is: “How are ninth grade students’ attitudes towards the subject related to their learning outcomes?” The empirical data (n = 4792) was collected by stratified sampling from 152 secondary schools as a part of the Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE) assessment. A shortened Finnish version of the Fennema–Sherman attitude test was carried out in a narrowed sample (n = 1548). The three attitude factors for learners were ‘Liking Sloyd as a school subject’, ‘Experiencing Utility in Sloyd’ and ‘Self-concept in Sloyd’. Structural equation modelling revealed that ‘Experiencing Utility’ predicts learning outcomes while ‘Liking’ and ‘Self-concept’ were interveners. The results suggest more learner-centred pedagogics for developing technology education.

Vorheriger Artikel Epistemic habits: primary school teachers’ development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in a design-based research project

Nächster Artikel Innovation learning in comprehensive education?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F. (2000). Assessing affective characteristics in schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ardies, J., de Maeyer, S., & Gijbels, D. (2013). Reconstructing the pupils attitude towards technology-survey. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 18(1), 8–19.

Ardies, J., de Maeyer, S., Gijbels, D., & van Keulen, H. (2014). Students’ attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9268-x.

Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 120(2), 224–237.CrossRef

Autio, O., & Soobik, M. (2013). A comparative study of craft and technology education curriculums and students’ attitudes towards craft and technology in Finnish and Estonian Schools. Techne Series A, 20(2), 17–33.

Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit index in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRef

Blachford, G. (1961). A history of handicraft teaching. London: Chatto and Windus.

Blomdahl, E., & Rogala, W. (2008). Technology in compulsory school—Why? What? How? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(1), 19–28.

Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Borg, K. (2008). Processess or/and Products – What do teachers assess? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 57–65.

Broadbooks, W. J., Elmore, P. B., Pedersen, K., & Bleyer, D. R. (1981). A construct validation study of the Fennema–Sherman mathematics attitudes scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 551–557.CrossRef

Byrne, B. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Taylor & Francis, Routledge.

Chamberlain, S. A. (2010). A review of instruments created to assess affect in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 167–182.

Chouinard, R., & Roy, N. (2008). Changes in high-school students’ competence beliefs, utility value and achievement goals in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 31–50.CrossRef

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRef

Curran, P., West, S., & Finch, J. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to non-normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29.CrossRef

de Vries, M. (2009). The developing field of technology education: An introduction. In A. T. Jones, M. J. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education. International technology education studies (pp. 1–9). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Dewey, J. (2011). Democracy and education (first published 1916). Simon & Brown.

Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema–Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by males and females. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 324–326.CrossRef

Fensham, P. (1992). Science and Technology. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 789–821). New York: MacMillan.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gliner, J., Morgan, G., & Harmon, R. (2001). Measurement reliability. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(4), 486–488.CrossRef

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

Hendley, D. (2001). Pupils’ attitudes and perceptions towards design and technology. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Teaching design and technology in secondary schools (pp. 64–76). London: Routledge/Falmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

Hoe, S. (2008). Issues and procedures in adapting structural equation modeling technique. Quantitative methods inquires. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76–83.

Hoyle, R. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hoyle, R. (2012). Model specification in structural equation modeling. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 127–144). New York: The Guilford Press.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef

Järvinen, E.-M., & Rasinen, A. (2014). Implementing technology education in Finnish general education schools: studying the cross-curricular theme ‘Human being and technology’. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9270-3.

Kallio, M. (2014). Risk-responsibility in safety education culture. Painosalama: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C382, Turku.

Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (2001). The nature and purpose of design and technology. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Teaching design and technology in secondary schools (pp. 19–30). London: Routledge/Falmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

Klausmaier, H., & Goodwin, W. (1975). Learning and human abilities (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Koulutuksen tilastollinen vuosikirja [Educational Statistics]. (2012). Opetushallitus [Finnish National Board of Education] Reports 2012:5. Tampere: Juvenes Print—Tampere University Press.

Laitinen, S., Hilmola, A., & Juntunen, M.-L. (2011). Perusopetuksen musiikin, kuvataiteen ja käsityön oppimistulosten arviointi 9. vuosiluokalla [Assessment of Learning Results in Compulsory Education Music, Art and Craft in 9th Grade] (Finnish National Board of Education. Training Reports 2011:1).

Lea, J. L., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centered learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321–334.CrossRef

Liau, A. K., Kassim, M., & Loke, M. L. T. (2007). Reliability and validity of a Malay translation of the Fennema–Sherman mathematics attitudes scale. The Mathematics Educator, 10(2), 71–84.

Lim, S. Y., & Chapman, E. (2013). An investigation of the Fennema–Sherman mathematics anxiety subscale. Measurement and Assessment in Counseling and Development, 46(1), 26–37.

Lindfors, L. (1999). Sloyd education in the cultural struggle. Part VIII. An outline of a Sloyd educational theory. (Åbo Akademi University. Reports from the Faculty of Education, 4/1999).

Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4(2), 192–211.CrossRef

MacCallum, R., & Austin, J. (2000). Applications of structural equation modelling in psychological research. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 51, 201–226.CrossRef

McCormick, R. (2001). The coming of technology education in England and Wales. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Teaching design and technology in secondary schools (pp. 31–57). London: Routledge/Falmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

McDonald, R., & Ho, R. (2002). Principles and practises in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.CrossRef

Metsämuuronen, J. (2009a). Methods Assisting Assessment; Methodological solutions for the National assessment and Follow-Ups in the Finnish national Board of Education [In Finnish], (Oppimistulosten arviointi 1/2009. Opetushallitus. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino).

Metsämuuronen, J. (2009b). Tutkimuksen tekemisen perusteet ihmistieteissä 4. International Methelp Oy.

Metsämuuronen, J. (2012). Challenges of the Fennema–Sherman test in the international comparisons. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(3), 1–22.CrossRef

Metsärinne, M. (2008). Suomen koulukäsityön neljä aikakautta opetussuunnitelmien ja teknisen työn oppikirjojen kuvauksena - kohti monipuolista koulukäsityön tutkimusta ja käytänteitä [The four Finnish school Sloyd periods as a description of curricula and textbooks—Towards diverse school Sloyd research and practice]. Techne Series A, 13, 1–128.

Metsärinne, M. (2011). Käsityön prosessioppimisen tarkastelua koulukäsityön perus- ja otosmittariarvioinnin perusteella [Examining Process Learning of technology by Basic and Sample Assessment]. In S. Laitinen & A. Hilmola (Eds.), Taito- ja taideaineiden oppimistulokset – asiantuntijoiden arviointia [Learning results in craft—An expert analysis], (Finnish National Board of Education. Reports 2011:11, pp. 194–206).

Metsärinne, M. & Kallio, M. (2011a). Johdatus tutkivaan tuottamiseen [Introduction to research based production], Techne Series B, 16.

Metsärinne, M. & Kallio, M. (2011b). Defining craft quality theory framework in Sloyd education, In M. Johansson & M. Porko-Hudd (Eds.), Vetenskapliga perspektiv och metoder inom slöjdfältet [Scientific perspective and methods for Sloyd], Techne Series A, 18 (1).

Metsärinne, M., & Kallio, M. (2014a). Craft interests during leisure time and craft learning outcomes in Finland. Craft Research, 5(1), 35–53.CrossRef

Metsärinne, M. & Kallio, M. (2014b). Experiences of classroom techniques and technology learning outcomes, Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 19(3), 9–22.

Metsärinne, M., Kallio, M., & Virta, K. (2015). Pupils’ readiness for self-regulated learning in the forethought phase of exploratory production. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 85–108.CrossRef

Metsärinne, M., Kullas, S., Kallio, M. & Pirttimaa, M. (2010). Teacher students’ individual growth into the craftsteachership. In A. Rasinen & T. Rissanen (Eds.), In the spirit of Uno Cygnaeus—Pedagogical questions of today and tomorrow (pp. 223–240). Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä.

Mill, C. R. (1960). Attitudes affect pupils’ learning. Educational Leadership, 17(4), 212–216.

Ministry of Education and Culture. (2014). Finnish student performance in PISA 2012 problem solving assessment one of the best (Press releases). www.minedu.fi/OPM/Tiedotteet/2014/04/Pisa_ongelmanratkaisu.html?lang=en. Accessed 2 September 2014.

Morgan, G., Gliner, J., & Harmon, R. (2001). Measurement validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 729–731.CrossRef

National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. (2004). Finnish National Board of Education. http://www.oph.fi/download/47673_core_curricula_basic_education_4.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2014.

Norström, P. (2013). How technology teachers understand technological knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 19–38.CrossRef

Ólafsson, B., & Thorsteinsson, G. (2009). Design and craft education in Iceland, pedagogical background and development: A literature review. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(2), 10–24.

Pallasmaa, J. (2009). The thinking hand. Existential and embodied wisdom in architecture. Hoboken: Wiley.

Parikka, M., Rasinen, A., & Ojala, A. (2011). Technology education. The ethical challenge. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Positioning technology education in the curriculum. International technology education series (pp. 133–143). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRef

Peltonen, J. (1995). The problem of the difference between craft and prevocational education in primary education. In J. Lasonen & M.-L. Stenström (Eds.), Contemporary issues of occupational education in Finland (Institute for Educational Research. University of Jyväskylä. Jyväskylä: Kopi-Jyvä Oy).

Peltonen, J. (2003a). The chain of rational theories as the directing means of productive activities in academic Sloyd education. Techne Series A, 5, 78–96.

Peltonen, J. (2003b). Handicraft education and truth. Considerations of truth as a basis for research-oriented teaching in handicraft education. In M. Itkonen & G. Backhaus (Eds.), Lived images. Mediations in experience, life-world and I-hood (pp. 412–429). Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä.

Peltonen, M., & Ruohotie, P. (1992). Oppimismotivaatiot. Teoriaa, tutkimuksia ja esimerkkejä oppimishalukkuudesta. [Theory, research and examples of motivation towards learning]. Keuruu: Otava.

Rasinen, A., Ikonen, P., & Rissanen, T. (2006). Are girls equal in technology education? In M. J. de Vries & I. Mottier (Eds.), International handbook of technology education. Reviewing the past twenty years. International technology education series (pp. 449–462). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Rasinen, A., Ikonen, P., & Rissanen, T. (2011). Technology education in Finnish copmrehensive schools. In C. Benson & J. Lunt (Eds.), Reviewing the past twenty years. International technology education series (pp. 97–105). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2010). Reviewing the relations between teachers’ knowledge and pupils’ attitude in the field of primary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 15–26.CrossRef

Sachs, J., & Leung, S. O. (2007). Shortened versions of Fennema–Sherman mathematic attitude scales employing trace information. Psychologika, 50(3), 224–235.CrossRef

Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 245–264). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Sherman, H. J., & Christian, M. (1999). Mathematics attitudes and global self-concept: An investigation of the relationship. College Student Journal, 33, 1–6.

Shin, J., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. (2009). Student and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: International comparisons between Korea, Japan and the USA. School of Psychology International, 30, 520–537.CrossRef

Steiger, J. (1990). Structural model assessment and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behaviour Research, 25, 173–180.CrossRef

Steiger, J. (2000). Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using the RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(2), 149–162.CrossRef

Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 16–21.

Tucker, L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.CrossRef

Ullman, J. (2001). Structural equation modelling. In B. Tabachnik & L. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed., pp. 653–771). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

Volk, K. S. (2007). Attitudes. In M. de Vries, R. Custer, J. Dakers, & G. Martin (Eds.), International journal of technology education series (pp. 191–202). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

West, S., Taylor, A., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York: The Guilford Press.

Whittaker, D. J. (2014). The impact and legacy of educational Sloyd. Head and hands in harness. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Wikoff, R. L., & Buchalter, B. D. (2006). Factor analysis of four Fennema–Sherman mathematics attitude scales. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 17(6), 703–706.CrossRef

Yu, K.-C., Lin, K.-Y., Han, F.-N., & Hsu, I.-Y. (2012). A model of junior high school students’ attitudes toward technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 423–436.CrossRef

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning from teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–19). New York: The Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64). London: Routledge.

Titel: How are students’ attitudes related to learning outcomes?
verfasst von: Mika Metsärinne
Manne Kallio
Publikationsdatum: 07.06.2015
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9317-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Innovation learning in comprehensive education?

Analysing the correlation between social network analysis measures and performance of students in social network-based engineering education

Epistemic habits: primary school teachers’ development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in a design-based research project

Response strategies for curriculum change in engineering

Exploring the learning problems and resource usage of undergraduate industrial design students in design studio courses

Two elementary schools’ developing potential for sustainability of engineering education

Premium Partner