03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Nature of Science in Physics, Chemistry and Biology Curricula in England
Ebru Kaya1, Sibel Erduran2
1Bogazici University, Turkiye; 2University of Oxford, UK
Presenting Author: Kaya, Ebru
Contemporary societies face significant challenges in dealing with issues such as climate change, the Covid-19 pandemic as well as disinformation and pseudo-science. Within the European context, the importance of scientific literacy as a component of curriculum innovation has been identified as a means to deal with such challenges, for instance through equipping learners with the tools to navigate and critically address the vast amounts of information exchanged in public debate, and support democratic processes (Siarova, Sternadel & Szőnyi, 2019). Understanding different aspects of NOS has been argued to contribute to scientific literacy (Matthews, 2016). NOS is about different aspects of science such as the aims, values, methods, practices and social context of science. Aspects of NOS have been included in policy documents from the European Commission as part of particular scientific competences (O’Carroll et al., 2017). As an area of research in science education, NOS has gained much attention (Abd-el-Khalick, 2012; Allchin, 2011; Lederman et al., 2002). The paper presents an empirical investigation into the coverage of nature of science (NOS) in the physics, chemistry and biology curricula in England. It is important to investigate the curriculum content on NOS because curricula are important resources that teachers use when making these plans and preparing the lesson content. In previous curriculum analyses, researchers have used various frameworks on NOS to trace its representation in science curricula. For example, Kaya and Erduran (2016) used the Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach to Nature of Science (RFN) which is the current framework on the nature of science (e.g. Erduran & Dagher, 2014; Irzik & Nola, 2014). This framework considers NOS as a cognitive-epistemic and social-institutional system, and as such it is fairly broad and it can capture a wide range of aspects of science. It has been applied as an analytical framework, for example in the analysis of assessment documents (e.g. Cheung, 2020). RFN has not been applied to the analysis of physics, chemistry and biology curricula (DfE, 2013; 2014) in England. Tracing how NOS is represented in physics, chemistry and biology curricula can shed light on how such different fields of science are conceptualised in science curricula. The study was guided by the following research questions: (a) How is NOS covered in the physics, chemistry and biology curricula at Key Stage 4 level in England? (b) What are the similarities and differences in how NOS is represented in the curricula of different sciences of physics, chemistry and biology? In order to address these research questions, a content analysis method proposed by Elo ve Kyngäs (2008) was used. This method consists of 3 steps: preparation, organizing, and reporting. In the preparation step, the unit of analysis and theoretical framework are selected. The unit of analysis was selected as sentences in the curricula in this study. Furthermore, Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach to Nature of Science (RFN) (Kaya & Erduran, 2016) was selected as the theoretical framework of the analysis. The organizing step includes creating the analysis matrices and coding based on the categories. RFN consists of the following categories: (a) cognitive-epistemic: aims and values, methods, practices and knowledge, and (b) social-institutional: social values, scientific methods, social certification and dissemination, social organisations and interactions, financial systems and political power structures. Results and findings for each curriculum analysis is presented highlighting the trends in the coverage of the key RFN categories. A significant finding is that the social-institutional categories were underrepresented in all curricula. Furthermore, only the introductory sections of the curricula included the majority of the RFN categories which were mainly about the cognitive-epistemic aspects of NOS. They were not integrated into the sections that covered the content knowledge.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe data sources are curriculum documents for Key Stage 4 (KS4) in England (Department for Education, 2014). KS4 in England involves 10th and 11th year students (from 14 to 16 years old). The curriculum document consists of 5 main sections: Introduction, Working Scientifically, Subject Content: Biology, Subject Content: Chemistry, and Subject Content: Physics. The introduction section emphasizes the aims and significance of teaching science. “Working scientifically” section includes 4 subsections which are “The development of scientific thinking”, “Experimental skills and strategies'', “Analysis and evaluation”, and “Vocabulary, units, symbols and nomenclature”. In this study, we call the ‘introduction’ and “working scientifically” sections in the curriculum as ‘Introductory’ sections. In the 3 subject-content (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics) sections, the goals and significance of each subject and the specific topics in each subject are presented. The extent to which the physics, chemistry and biology curricula in England contain NOS was analyzed qualitatively through the adapted version of a content analysis method proposed by Elo ve Kyngäs (2008) and consists of 3 steps: preparation, organizing, and reporting. The unit of analysis was selected as sentences in the curricula. Furthermore RFN (Kaya & Erduran, 2016) was selected for coding the text. For example, the biology curriculum refers to the following statements which are coded under the “aims and values” category: “The study of biology involves collecting and interpreting information about the natural world to identify patterns and relate possible cause and effect. Biology is used to help humans improve their own lives and to understand the world around them.” This episode is coded as an instance of “aims and values” of science because it points to what biology aims to accomplish (e.g. collect and interpret information) and the values it possesses (e.g. help humans to improve their lives). For example, for the “Aims and Values” category, “aim, value, objectivity, novelty, accuracy, empirical adequacy, critical examination, etc.”; for the “Scientific Practices” category, “observation, experiment, data, model, classification, prediction, argumentation, explanation, etc.”; for the “Professional Activities” category, “conference, article, presentation, writing, publication, etc.” were used as key words. For the interrater reliability, the researchers carried out coding independently. Then the results were checked in terms of consistency of analysis.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results show that the curricula include more references to the categories of the epistemic and cognitive aspects of science as compared to social-institutional aspects. The social-institutional categories were the least represented. Most references to NOS were found in the introductory section of the curriculum. While the biology, chemistry and physics sections include a few references to cognitive and epistemic categories, they practically do not include any reference to the social-institutional categories. The chemistry and physics sections do not include any keyword about social-institutional categories. Moreover, there are no references to “Social Organizations and Interactions” and “Political Power Structures” categories in the curriculum. The underrepresentation of the social-institutional aspects of NOS in the English science curricula is concerning considering the imminent role that understanding such aspects are critical in contemporary socioscientific issues such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the climate change emergency. Such pressing concerns demand scientific literacy not only in terms of the cognitive and epistemic aspects of science but also the broader societal context of science. For example, in the context of the Covid-19 informed citizenship would require understanding not only what a virus is (ie. biology) and how virus particles might be transmitted (i.e. chemistry) but also how the economic and political decision-making around the pandemic and its impact on society (i.e. social institutions). If science education is to contribute to problem-solving about such pressing issues in society (O’Carroll et al., 2017), it will need to embrace a broader vision for how NOS is treated in teaching and learning. As a broad framework, RFN affords for the identification of the current limitations of science curricula and it holds the potential to provide recommendations for curriculum reform and innovation. The present study illustrates in concrete terms which aspects of NOS can be developed further in the curriculum.
ReferencesAbd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353-374.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542.
Cheung, K. (2020). Exploring the Inclusion of Nature of Science in Biology Curriculum and High-Stakes Assessments in Hong Kong. Science & Education, 29, 491-512.
Department for Education (2014) The national curriculum in England: Key Stages 3 and 4 framework document. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-secondary-curriculum (Accessed: 16 May 2022).
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
O'Carroll, C., Hyllseth, B., Berg, R., et al.(2017). Providing researchers with the skills and competencies they need to practise. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2017). Open Science, Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/121253
Kaya, E. & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25(9), 1115-1133.
Irzik, G. & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In: M. Matthews, International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. pp. 999-1021. Springer.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
Matthews, M. (2016). The Contribution of History and Philosophy of Science, 20th Anniversary Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Routledge.
Siarova, H., Sternadel, D. & Szőnyi, E. (2019). Research for CULT Committee – Science and Scientific Literacy as an Educational Challenge, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Science Education at a Forked-Road: Curricular Transition in Ireland as an Opportunity to Inform Wider European Policy around Enquiry Practices
Natalie O'Neill
Dublin City University, Ireland
Presenting Author: O'Neill, Natalie
Research question: What can Ireland offer to the wider European debate on curriculum reform in science education?
This paper will provide evidence of how changes to STEM policy documents internationally, which are grounded in current academic research around best practice in science education, have failed to translate into practice among the wider science education community (Scientix, 2018). Policy occupies one epistemological stance (that of enquiry) while practice remains firmly in another (that of knowledge-as-transmission). Teachers are expected to navigate a landscape of policy reform that does not offer pedagogical guidance or a clear definition of enquiry (Osborne, 2015), and is at odds with the cultural and epistemological beliefs teachers hold of how practical work should be taught in schools (Loughran, 2014). Indeed, there are reports of teachers believing they are teaching enquiry-based lessons, when they are actually not (Capps et al., 2013). Irish senior cycle STEM curricula are currently under review after a series of reports that have deemed learner participation in STEM education as “less than satisfactory” (DES, 2020; 2017). Unsurprisingly, one of the main issues is an over-emphasis on propositional knowledge and an under-emphasis on epistemic and procedural knowledge (NCCA, 2019). In terms of practical activities, the lack of formal training around enquiry practices during initial teacher training and in-service professional development compounds the issue and has led to a situation where practical activities are taught by recipe and examined by rote (Hyland, 2011; Burns et al., 2018).
This research study, focuses on the enactment of enquiry-based practical activities at secondary and tertiary level and identifies how curricular reform cannot occur without epistemological reform. This type of complex reform requires the development of all three outputs of DBR; thoery, professional development and design of an educational artefact:
Theoretical Framework:
- Theory:
A theory of enquiry, specific to practical activities, is grounded in the work of Dewey’s complete act of thinking. This offers a view of knowledge as a dynamic end-in-view, constantly reaching into the unknown as an act of inference, “going beyond what is surely known to something else accepted on its warrant” (Dewey, 1910/2012). The mind/body dualism that is recognised within recipe teaching dissipates through this lens and is replaced by a focus on consciousness, which supports the process of enquiry. An inductive and deductive process of thinking is essential, where what is learned in one situation is put to an applied use in another, leading to a learning continuum that promotes a conscious search for knowledge.
2. Professional Development:
In addition, Wenger’s (1998) concept of a Community of Practice is employed as a lens through which professional development takes place. Teachers (pre-service and in-service) are gradually brought into a community of enquiry practitioners, firstly through involvement in the three modes of learning (mutual engagement, joint enterprise, shared repertoire), followed by exposure to a nexus of perspectives (student, teacher, designer) focused on creating a sense of belonging (hence identity) to the enquiry community.
Conceptual Framework:
3. Artefact
A Framework for Teaching Enquiry Activities (FTEA) was developed for teachers to use as a sense-making artefact around which to design and teach practical activities. It’s use an inductive/deductive tool for practical activities is designed to portray the specific theoretical view of enquiry as a pedagogy of uncertainty. When used as a boundary object within a community of practice it leads to an epistemic shift in teachers’ beliefs about knowledge and fosters the “Design Mind” that is required for teachers to engage in curriculum making.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDesign-based research was chosen as the research methodology because of its excellent track record at providing solutions to “wicked” problems such as the policy/practice, enquiry/recipe divide in STEM curricula (Kelly, 2013). There are three mesocycles of research within this project (McKenney and Reeves, 2012);
1. A scoping mesocycle that identified an “enquiry vacuum” in the Irish senior cycle biology curriculum
2. A design and development mesocycle that resulted in the iterative design and refinement of three outputs: a theory of enquiry as an ontological innovation, an educational artefact as a sense-making object, and a programme for professional development through a community of practice lens
3. A summative evaluation mesocycle that tested the artefact in two target settings – a university laboratory, and a second level biology classroom.
Two quality approved DBR methodologies were used to refine the three outputs of the research and to scaffold learning for teachers (in-service and pre-service) within a community of practice before testing the FTEA in its target settings (Nieveen et al., 2012):
1. Walkthrough workshops
2. Micro-evaluations
These methods provided a liminal space (Land et al., 2014) in which teachers could make the epistemological shift towards enquiry teaching, away from the everyday pressures of the biology classroom. When teachers were comfortable with the language and pedagogy of enquiry, they returned to their classrooms to teach practical activities.
Data collected through interview, survey, audio and video evidence was analysed qualitatively using template analysis (King, 2012). This inductive/deductive analysis technique complements the pragmatic nature of DBR, providing a focus on “what works” in a particular situation rather than absolute truth. In addition qualitative analysis of video recordings was conducted through Millar’s Practical Activity Analysis Inventory (2009) and a Structured Enquiry Observations Schedule developed specifically for this research project. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data form alternative perspectives supported the validity of the claims made here.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe Theory of Enquiry developed specifically for practical activities provides a clear definition of enquiry that can suitably underpin STEM curriculum reform. It answers calls to focus knowledge on how people learn rather than on “IBL” (Osborne, 2015; Kirschener et al., 2006). It also answers national policy calls to strike a balance between propositional, procedural and epistemic knowledge (DES,2017) and international calls for innovative approaches to STEM teaching grounded in enquiry (Scientix, 2018). Underpinning practical activities with this theory leads to a pedagogy of possibility, and reduced the need for students to have the “right” answers.
The FTEA has shown its worth as a pedagogical artefact that spans multiple levels of curriculum (junior cycle, senior cycle, third level). It focuses learning on knowledge building and critical thinking rather than transmission of content, by providing clear criteria for designing and teaching practical activities. By providing an alignment between theory and practice it promotes a set of epistemological assumptions within which teachers can make sense of enquiry. The FTEA also answers questions of how to balance “tight” (top-down) and “loose” policy, because teachers work as curriculum makers when they use it to design lessons (Zohar and Hipkins, 2018).
The Community of Practice Approach highlights the need for professional development concerning laboratory work specifically. Within an enquiry-based community of practice commonly identified issues that prevent science teachers from engaging in enquiry (lack of subject content, lack of laboratory skills) dissipate as the view of knowledge as an end-in-view becomes the norm. Teachers regain freedom from the need to “know” everything as they adopt the enquiry identity of the Design Mind, before they teach enquiry-based lessons to their students in the target setting. The FTEA acts as a boundary object in this context, around which teachers can make epistemological sense of enquiry (Wenger, 1998).
ReferencesBurns, D., Devitt, A., McNamara, G., O'Hara, J., & Brown, M. (2018). Is it all memory recall? An empirical investigation of intellectual skill requirements in Leaving Certificate examination papers in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 37(3), 351-372.
Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based professional development: What does it take to support teachers in learning about inquiry and nature of science?. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 1947-1978.
DES, 2017 STEM Education Policy Statement. Retrieved January 2023. https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/4d40d5-stem-education-policy/#stem-education-policy-statement-2017-2026
DES, (2020).STEM Education 2020: Reporting on Practice in Early Learning and Care, Primary and Post-Primary Contexts. Retrieved: January 2023 https://www.google.com/search?q=DES+STEM+report+2020&oq=DES+STEM+report+2020&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160j33i22i29i30.6226j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Dewey, J. (1910/2012). How we think. Courier Corporation.
Hyland, A. 2011. “Entry to Higher Education in Ireland in the 21st Century.” NCCA/HEA Seminar, September 21, 1–24. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
Kelly, A. E. (2013). When is design research appropriate. Educational design research, 135-150.
King, N (2012). “Doing Template Analysis”. Symon, G., & Cassell, C. (Eds.). Qualitative organizational research: core methods and current challenges. Sage.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Land, R., Rattray, J., & Vivian, P. (2014). Learning in the liminal space: a semiotic approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education, 67(2), 199-217.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.
Millar, R. (2009). Analysing practical activities to assess and improve effectiveness: The Practical Activity Analysis Inventory (PAAI). York: Centre for Innovation and Research in Science Education, University of York.
NCCA, (2019): Date Accessed: January 2023. https://ncca.ie/media/5387/bp-lc-pcb-sep-2019.pdf
Nieveen, N., Folmer, E., &Vliegen, S. (2012). Evaluation matchboard. Enschede: SLO.
Osborne, J. (2015). Practical work in science: Misunderstood and badly used. School science review, 96(357), 16-24.
Scientix (2018). Education Practices in Europe. Retrieved: July 2022. http://www.scientix.eu/documents/10137/782005/STEM-EduPractices_DEF_WEB.pdf/b4847c2d-2fa8-438c-b080-3793fe26d0c8
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press
Zohar, A., &Hipkins, R. (2018). How “tight/loose” curriculum dynamics impact the treatment of knowledge in two national contexts. Curriculum Matters, 14, 31-47.
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Perspectives for Students in Education and Work – Diversity in Guidance Practices for Study Choice, Study Career and Future Orientation
Rineke Keijzer1,2, Lysanne Post2, Dineke Tigelaar2
1Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands; 2Leiden University, ICLON, The Netherlands
Presenting Author: Keijzer, Rineke;
Post, Lysanne
Study switch (Biemans et al., 2020) and isolation due to corona (Van Mol et al., 2021) can lead to difficult intake in and transitions within education and poor future prospects for students. The twofold focus of this research project, carried out at institutions of secondary vocational education (EQF levels 3-4), higher professional education (EQF-level 6), and academic higher education (EQF-level 6), is on guidance practices and on study and work-related interests of students. The research goal is to gain insight into guidance practices with regard to study choice, study career and future orientation, so that more students can find perspective in education and work. This research builds on existing knowledge on this area with extra attention to psychological and social capital, and, additionally, the consideration of future images, interests and skills of young people themselves. In line with the need for more research on this topic, existing insights are validated with student groups from different programs at different educational levels (Slot et al., 2020; Vulperhorst, 2022).
Issues of student dropout, progression and study success have been requiring attention for some time now (Brand-Gruwel et al., 2019; Van den Broek et al., 2020). Less physical education during the covid pandemic led to study delays or feelings of isolation for some students (Van Mol et al., 2021). Although there are many job opportunities nowadays, there is also social and economic uncertainty and many students have doubts about their future. Psychological capital and social capital are important for the well-being of students (Nielsen et al., 2017) and are also positively related to future images of students about themselves as a professional and the possibilities they see for realizing their ambitions related to education and work (Keijzer et al., 2020; Weiss et al., 2019).
Learning experiences with regard to study career guidance, the support experienced and the acquisition of career competences are relevant to the extent to which students experience what they have learned as valuable and applicable (Kuijpers et al., 2011; Mittendorff et al., 2017; Wigfield et al., 2020). Skills such as curiosity, flexibility and risk-taking can help students deal with uncertainties regarding their future orientation and take action at the right time (Yang et al., 2017). In order to find perspective in education and work and to strengthen the well-being of students, it is crucial to connect with the interests of students (Draijer et al., 2020; Quinlan & Renninger, 2022). After all, experiencing interest is beneficial for well-being, learning performance and appreciation of activities at school or elsewhere (Hidi, 2006; Slot et al., 2020). Students often have broad interests, for example with regard to favorite activities and subjects they follow, which also influence their considerations for a profession or further education (Draijer, et al., 2020; Vulperhorst, et al., 2020; Quinlan & Renninger, 2022). Meaningful activities and group work can play a role in this (Renninger, et al., 2019), but also, for example, wanting to achieve a certain goal, focus on personal development, or wanting to participate substantially in a certain practice (cf. Slot, et al., 2020). Existing insights into the development of interest of students in relation to education and work can be better utilized in guiding students in their study choice and study career and can be validated with more target groups (Slot, et al., 2020; Vulperhorst, et al., 2020).
This research builds on existing knowledge with regard to guidance and support with study choice, study career and future orientation, with extra attention to the psychological and social capital of students and to their interests related to education and work, as experienced in the various contexts of their daily life.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThree large institutions take part in the study: one institution offering secondary vocational education, one offering higher professional education, and one offering academic higher education. They are all located in South Holland, a predominantly urban province in the west of the Netherlands. Participating students followed a program in Electrical Engineering or Mechatronics at secondary vocational education; a professional Bachelor in Occupational Therapy or Accountancy; or an academic Bachelor in Law or at an Honors College.
The research follows a mixed method approach with sub-questions focused on:
1. The characteristics of guidance practices with regard to study and career planning before the gate and during a study;
2. Students' learning experiences with regard to study and career planning;
3. Interests and future images of students with regard to education and work;
4. Transferable working elements with regard to study choice, study career and future orientation.
The guidance practices have been analyzed by means of an environmental scan based on documents on websites, and semi-structured interviews with fifteen student counselors and curriculum designers to obtain more insight into the guidance practices.
For sub-questions 2 and 3, data is collected with a large-scale questionnaire study and a small-scale study (N≈30) with a digital logbook. Data is collected in two periods.
We analyze the questionnaire data with descriptive statistics and (multilevel) regression analysis to provide insight into differences in initial interests and future images in relation to education and work, and possible connections with, respectively, learning experiences concerning study and career planning, perceived support, and psychological and social capital.
In a week-long digital log, students can indicate daily which interests they have worked on. In addition, daily video calls and an in-depth interview after that week take place with a selection of the participants. We analyze the logbook data by means of content analysis, social network analysis, and multilevel regression analysis to provide insight into differences in initial interest profiles in relation to education and work, and how the interests are fed within and outside the education. The in-depth interviews and video conversations are analyzed from a biographical perspective and expressed in personal stories.
Sub-question 4 is answered by analyzing advisory board meetings. Based on reflection and discussion about the findings, the advisory board members formulate design principles for guiding students in choosing a study, study career and future orientation for use in broader contexts than those studied.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results show that individual, personally focused attention and frequent supervision are important characteristics of the practices used by study programs to (better) guide students in their study choice, study career and future orientation. Based on the findings, case studies of guidance practices will be presented during ECER-Glasgow. The results of a questionnaire survey and an additional study with a digital logbook and in-depth interviews about students' interests, images of the future and learning experiences are presented.
The research builds on research with regard to guidance in study choice, study career and future orientation, with extra attention for the role of psychological and social capital. Existing insights into student interest development in relation to education and work are validated with more target groups (Slot et al., 2020; Vulperhorst, 2022).
The twofold focus of the research project leads to insights into student guidance as well as practically applicable outcomes, in the form of design principles or tested guidelines. The research project aims to contribute to better guidance of various groups of students in their study choice, study career and future orientation, so that more students can find perspective in education and work.
ReferencesBrand-Gruwel, S., Bos, N. R., & van der Graaf, A. (2019). Het vergroten van studiesucces in het hoger onderwijs: belang van overtuigingen van docenten. Pedagogische Studiën, 96(1), 1-14.
Draijer, J., Bakker, A., Slot, E., & Akkerman, S. (2020). The Multidimensional Structure of Interest. Frontline Learning Research, 8(4), 18-36.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 69-82.
Keijzer, R., Admiraal, W., van der Rijst, R., & van Schooten, E. (2020). Vocational identity of at-risk emerging adults and its relationship with individual characteristics. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 20(2), 375-410. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-019-09409-z
Kuijpers, M., Meijers, F., & Gundy, C. (2011). The relationship between learning environment and career competencies of students in vocational education. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.005
Mittendorff, K., Faber, M., & Staman, L. (2017). A matching activity when entering higher education: Ongoing guidance for the students or efficiency instrument for the school? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 45(4), 376-390.
Nielsen, I., Newman, A., Smyth, R., Hirst, G., Hirst, G., & Heilemann, B. (2017). The influence of instructor support, family support and psychological capital on the well-being of postgraduate students: a moderated mediation model. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2099-2115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1135116
Quinlan, K. M., & Renninger, K. A. (2022). Rethinking employability: how students build on interest in a subject to plan a career. Higher Education. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00804-6
Slot, E., Vulperhorst, J., Bronkhorst, L., Van der Rijst, R., Wubbels, T., & Akkerman, S. (2020). Mechanisms of interest sustainment. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24, 100356.
Van den Broek, A., Cuppen, J., Ramakers, C., Termorshuizen, T., & Vroegh, T. (2020). Dalende doorstroom mbo-hbo: Waarom stroomt een steeds kleiner aandeel van de mbo-studenten door naar het hbo. Nijmegen: ResearchNed.
Van Mol, C., Dekkers, S., & Verbakel, E. (2021). De impact van de coronacrisis op het subjectief welbevinden van (internationale) studenten in Nederland. Mens & Maatschappij, 96(3), 357-383.
Weiss, S., Harder, J., Bratiotis, C., & Nguyen, E. (2019). Youth perceptions of a school-based mentoring program. Education and Urban Society, 51(3), 423-437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517722830
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Möller, J. (2020). How dimensional comparisons help to understand linkages between expectancies, values, performance, and choice. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 657-680.
Yang, N., Yaung, H., Noh, H., Jang, S. H., & Lee, B. (2017). The change of planned happenstance skills and its association with career-related variables during school-to-work transition. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 17(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-016-9332-z
|
