Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 4 (Dec., 2014) Ayşe SERT ÇIBIK Investigation of primary education second level students’ motivations toward science learning in terms of various factors Previous Contents Next

Findings

1. How do the total motivation scores (REAL version & IDEAL version) of second level students of primary education toward science learning change according to gender and class variables?

Descriptive statistical distribution of the variables of gender and class according to the residential area of the second level students of primary school were shown in Table 1. Moreover, t-Test of independent groups was performed to compare whether the total motivation scores of the students in science learning is meaningful and One-Way ANOVA was performed to compare if it is meaningful in terms of grade level. Results were given in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.

Table 1. Results of descriptive statistics in terms of gender and class variant (N:413)

Gender	Settlement	6th Grade	7th Grade	8th Grade	Total
		N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Female	Adana	30	14.8	35	17.2	38	18.7	103	50.7
	Ankara	31	14.8	40	19.0	34	16.2	105	50.0
	X (total)	61	14.8	75	18.2	72	17.4	208	50.4
Male	Adana	36	17.7	32	15.8	32	15.8	100	49.3
	Ankara	38	18.1	28	13.3	39	18.6	105	50.0
	X (total)	74	17.9	60	14.5	71	17.2	205	49.6

According to Table 1, 208 of the second level students of primary education that were participated in the research were females whereas 205 of these students were males. On the other hand, distribution of the students according to settlement in terms of gender was close to each other.

Table 2. The results of t-Test and One Way ANOVA in terms of gender and class variables of students’ total motivational scores in science learning of second level students of primary education (REAL version)

*p<.05

When Table 2 was analyzed, we observe that total motivational scores of female and male students (REAL version) in science learning were different from each other [X_female=62.95, X_male=54.90]. A difference of .05 between the motivational scores in science learning of female and male students was revealed with the test this difference was meaningful and was in favor of female students [F_(208-205)=5.526, p<.05]. On the other hand, a statistically meaningful difference between the points according to grade level that the students get from the scale [F₍₄₁₃₎=37.348, p<.05] was observed and this difference was seen to be in favor of the students of the 6^th and 7^th grade. Consequently, we observed that the total motivations of the students of 6^th and 7^th grade toward science learning were higher than the motivations of the students of 8^th grade.

Table 3. The results of t-Test and One Way ANOVA in terms of gender and class variables of students’ total motivational scores in science learning of second level students of primary education (IDEAL version)

	Motivationalal scores in science learning (IDEAL version)
Gender	N	X	S	Sd	F	*p
Female	208	64.86	14.303	411	7.155	.000
Male	205	55.62	11.804
Grade level
6th grade	135	66.35	13.37	2	46.306	.000 (6th grade-8th grade, 7th grade-8th grade)
7th grade	135	62.59	12.15
8th grade	143	52.36	12.21

*p<.05

As one analyzes Table 3, total motivational scores of female and male students (IDEAL version) in science learning were seen to be different from each other [X_female=64.86, X_male=55.62]. The difference of .05 between the motivational scores in science learning of female and male students were revealed with the test and this difference was meaningful and was in favor of female students [F_(208-205)=7.155, p<.05]. On the other hand, there was a statistically meaningful difference between the points according to grade level that the students got from the scale [F₍₄₁₃₎=46.306, p<.05] and it was also revealed that this difference was in favor of the students of the 6^th and 7^th grade. Consequently, we can conclude that the total motivations of the students of 6^th and 7^th grade toward science learning were higher than the motivations of the students of 8^th grade.

2. How do the total motivational scores (REAL version & IDEAL version) of second level students of primary education toward science learning change according to socio-economic status?

Frequency-percentage distribution of socio-economic status educational levels of parents, level of income of second level students of primary education who participate in the research were performed and statistical values in terms of these variables were given in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. Along with this, independent t-Test and One-Way ANOVA were carried out to reveal the values, in terms of the change of total motivation scores (REAL version & IDEAL version) in terms of science learning according to socio-economic status and results were given in Table 7.

Table 4. Descriptive values of second level students of primary education in terms of the educational level of their mothers

According to Table 4, when the educational levels of mothers of second level students of primary education were analyzed, it was observed that mothers of many of each grade students (37.0%, 38.5%, 39.9%) were high school graduate. On the other hand, when the distribution of educational levels of mothers was analyzed according to grade level of students, we see that mothers of 20.7% of 6^th grade students were primary school graduate, 22.2% of them were secondary school graduate and 37.0% of them were high school graduate. In addition, mothers of 17.0% of 7^th grade students were primary school graduate, 22.2% of them were secondary school graduate and 38.5% of them were high school graduate. For the mothers of 8^th grade students, 20.3% of them were primary school graduate, 16.8% of them were secondary school graduate, 39.9% of them were high school graduate and finally 14.7% of them were university graduate.

Table 5. Descriptive values of second level students of primary education in terms of the educational level of their fathers

Grade levels	Settlement	Father’s level of education												Total
		Literate		Primary school		Secondary school		High school		Undergraduate		Graduate
		N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
6th grade	Adana	3	2.2	7	5.2	23	17.0	26	19.3	6	4.4	1	0.7	66	48.9
	Ankara	0	0	0	0	3	2.2	18	13.3	46	34.1	2	1.5	69	51.1
	Total	3	2.2	7	5.2	26	19.2	44	32.6	52	38.5	3	2.2	135	100
7th grade	Adana	3	2.2	13	9.6	20	14.8	24	17.8	7	5.2	0	0	67	49.6
	Ankara	0	0	0	0	0	0	10	7.4	49	36.3	9	6.7	68	50.4
	Total	3	2.2	13	9.6	20	14.8	34	25.2	56	41.5	9	6.7	135	100
8th grade	Adana	0	0	0	0	22	15.4	28	19.6	1	0.7	0	0	70	49.0
	Ankara	0	0	0	0	0	0	7	4.9	56	39.2	10	7.0	73	51.0
	Total	0	0	0	0	22	15.4	35	24.5	57	39.9	10	7.0	143	100

According to Table 5, as the educational levels of fathers of second level students of primary education were analyzed, we observe that fathers of many of each grade students (38.5%, 41.5%, 39.9%) had an undergraduate degree. On the other hand, we observe that fathers of 19.2% of 6^th grade students were secondary school graduate, 32.6% of them were high school graduate and 38.5% of them were university graduate. Furthermore, fathers of 14.8% of 7^th grade students were secondary school graduate, 25.2% of them were high school graduate and 41.5% of them were university graduate. Fathers of 15.4% of 8^th grade students were secondary school graduate, 24.5% of them were high school graduate and 39.9% of them were university graduate.

Table 6. Descriptive values of second level students of primary education according to level of income

Grade levels	Settlement	Level of income										Total
		500-1000 TL		1000-1500 TL		1500-2000 TL		2000-2500 TL		>2500 TL
		N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
6th grade	Adana	5	3.7	19	14.1	33	24.4	7	5.2	2	1.5	66	48.9
	Ankara	0	0	2	1.5	10	7.4	30	22.2	27	20.0	69	51.1
	Total	5	3.7	21	15.6	43	31.8	37	27.4	29	21.5	135	100
7th grade	Adana	0	0	31	23.0	28	20.7	4	3.0	4	3.0	67	49.6
	Ankara	0	0	0	0	3	2.2	28	20.7	37	27.4	68	50.4
	Total	0	0	31	23.0	31	22.9	32	23.7	41	30.4	135	100
8th grade	Adana	2	1.4	24	16.8	32	22.4	11	7.7	1	0.7	70	49.0
	Ankara	0	0	0	0	0	0	26	18.2	47	32.9	73	51.0
	Total	2	1.4	24	16.8	32	22.4	37	25.9	48	33.6	143	100

Table 6 shows the variation of the second level primary education students according to the levels of income of students. Level of income of 31.8% of 6^th grade students was 1500-2000 Turkish Lira (TL) whereas level of income of 30.4% of 7^th grade students and 33.6% of 8^th grade students was >2500 Turkish Lira (TL).

Table 7. Results of t-Test and One Way ANOVA of total motivational scores of second level students of primary education in science learning in terms of socio-economic status

*p<.05

According to Table 7, although the average of the total motivation scores (REAL version) of second level students of primary education in science learning was found to be 58.95, point average (IDEAL version) was 60.27. On the other hand, there was a statistical difference between the points they got from the REAL version of the scale in terms of mother’s level of education [F_(6-406)=8.122, p<.05], father’s level of education [F_(5-407)=23.805, p<.05], monthly income [F_(4-408)=19.241, p<.05]. For the IDEAL version of the scale, the results were as [F_(6-406)=6.418, p<.05] for mother’s level of education, [F_(5-407)=15.959, p<.05] for father’s level of education, [F_(4-408)=14.694, p<.05] for monthly income. According to the results of Scheffe test which was performed to find the level of difference between the socio-economic status, the students whose mothers are literate (2) and primary school graduate (3) and whose fathers are primary school (3) and secondary school graduate (4) had low level of motivation towards science learning compared to the other educational levels. On the other hand, motivational level in science learning of the students whose income was between 1000-1500 TL (2) and 1500-2000 TL (3) had low level of motivation when compared to the other levels of income.

3. How do the total motivation scores (REAL version & IDEAL version) of second level students of primary education toward science learning change according to the success of the students in science-technology course and science-technology course score?

Descriptive statistical distribution of the success of the second level students in science-technology course and science-technology course score is shown in Table 8. Moreover, one-way ANOVA was performed to compare whether the total motivation scores (REAL version & IDEAL version) of the students in science learning were meaningful in terms of success in science-technology course and science-technology course score. The results were given in Table 9 and Table 10 respectively.

Table 8. Results of descriptive statistics according to success in science-technology course and science-technology course score

Success in science-technology course	Settlement	Science-technology course score										Total
		0-44		45-54		55-69		70-84		85-100
		N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Over achievement	Adana	0	0	1	0.5	6	3.0	11	5.4	11	5.4	29	14.6
	Ankara	0	0	3	1.4	16	7.6	30	14.3	39	18.6	88	42.0
	X(total)	0	0	4	1.0	22	5.3	41	9.9	50	12.1	117	28.3
Middle level achievement	Adana	2	1.0	15	7.4	37	18.2	39	19.2	13	6.4	106	52.2
	Ankara	0	0	2	1.0	19	9.0	29	13.8	56	26.7	106	50.5
	X(total)	2	0.5	17	4.1	56	13.6	68	16.5	69	16.7	212	51.4
Low achievement	Adana	4	2.0	2	0.5	19	9.4	6	3.0	8	3.9	39	18.9
	Ankara	0	0	29	13.8	1	0.5	5	2.4	10	4.8	45	21.7
	X(total)	4	1.0	31	7.1	20	4.8	11	2.7	18	4.4	84	20.3

According to Table 8, it was seen that 28.3% of the students who participated in the research qualified themselves as “overachiever”, 51.4% of them as “middle level achiever” and 20.3% of them as “underachiever”. On the other hand, there was a difference between the achievements of students in science-technology course and distribution of scores in the course. For example, among the students who qualified themselves as overachiever, score of 12.1% of them in the course was “85-100”, 16.7 and 16.5% of the students who qualified themselves as middle level achiever had the scores “85-100” “70-84” and 7.1% of the students qualifying themselves as the underachiever had the scores between “45-54” in science-technology course. Consequently, the majority of the students (51.4%) got the middle level achievement in the course and we observed that the scores of these students in science-technology course varied mainly between “75-84” and “85-100”.

Table 9. The results of One-Way ANOVA in terms of success in science-technology course and science-technology course score variables concerning second level students’ total motivational scores (REAL version ) in science learning

         *p<.05

When Table 9 was analyzed, one observes that total motivational scores of students (REAL version) in science learning in terms of success in science-technology course were different from each other. According to this observation, arithmetic mean of students who qualified themselves as “overachiever” was X=65.11 whereas arithmetic mean of students who qualified themselves as “middle level achiever” was X=57.74. Along with this, arithmetic mean of the students who qualified themselves as “underachiever” was X=53.44. We also see that the difference of .05 between the motivational scores in science learning of students in terms of success in science-technology course was revealed with the test and this difference was meaningful and in favor of “overachiever” students [F_(208-205)=16.716, p<.05]. On the other hand, there was a statistically meaningful difference between the scores according to science-technology course score that the students got from the scale [F₍₄₁₃₎=10.436, p<.05] and it was also revealed that this difference was in favor of the students whose course score was between “85-100”. Students, whose course score were between “0-44” and “45-54” average of motivational score in science learning (X=37.50, X=47.84) were different from the other students with other course scores. Consequently, we could conclude that the motivations of the students with “85-100” points in science learning were higher than the motivations of the students with the other course scores.

Table 10. The results of One-Way ANOVA in terms of success in science-technology course and science-technology course score variables concerning second level students’ total motivational scores (IDEAL version ) in science learning

         *p<.05

When Table 10 was analyzed, it was observed that the total motivational scores of students (IDEAL version) in science learning in terms of success in science-technology course were different from each other. According to this, arithmetic mean of students who qualified themselves as “overachiever” was X=64.43 whereas arithmetic mean of students who qualified themselves as “middle level achiever” was X=59.01. Furthermore, arithmetic mean of the students who qualified themselves as “underachiever” was X=57.67. The difference of .05 between the motivational scores in science learning of students in terms of success in science-technology course was revealed with the test and this difference was meaningful and in favor of “overachiever” students [F_(208-205)=7.823, p<.05]. On the other hand, there was a statistically meaningful difference between the points according to science-technology course point that students got from the scale [F₍₄₁₃₎=4.502, p<.05] and it was also revealed that this difference was in favor of the students whose course score was between “85-100. Students, whose course score were between “0-44” and “45-54” average of motivation score in science learning (X=44.17, X=53.56) were different from the other students with the other course scores. Hence, it could be deduced that motivations of the students with “85-100” points in science learning were higher than the motivations of the students with the other course scores.

 

---

Copyright (C) 2014 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 4 (Dec., 2014). All Rights Reserved.