Exploring persistence in science in CEGEP : toward a motivational model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently a shortage of science teachers in North America and continually decreasing rates of enrollment in science programs. Science continues to be the academic domain that sees the highest attrition rates, particularly for women. The purpose of the present study was to examine male and female students' experiences in mathematics and science courses during a crucial time in their academic development in an attempt to explain the high attrition rates in science between the last year of high school and the first year of CEGEP (junior college). In line with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), as well as achievement-goal theory (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996) and research on academic emotions, the study examined the relation between a set of motivational variables (i.e., perceptions of autonomy-support, self-efficacy, achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation), affect, achievement, and persistence. A secondary objective was to test a motivational model of student persistence in science using structural equation modeling (SEM). The sample consisted of 603 male and 706 female students from four English-language CEGEPs in the greater Montreal area. Just prior to beginning CEGEP, participants completed a questionnaire that asked about the learning environment in high school mathematics and science classes as well as student characteristics including sources of motivation, personal achievement goals, and feelings of competence. All students expressed an initial interest in pursuing a career in science by enrolling in optional advanced mathematics and science courses during high school. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to examine differences among male and female students across the variables measured. Structural equation modeling was used to test the validity of a questionnaire designed specifically to gather information about CEGEP students' experiences with mathematics and science, and to evaluate the fit of a model designed to reflect the interactions between the different variables. Students' experiences during high school have an impact on their decisions to pursue or abandon their path toward an eventual science career. Classroom experiences and student characteristics interact to influence their performance and affect, which in turn influence their decisions. Implications for promoting persistence in science are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".