SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Anderson, J. O., Chiu, M.-h., & Yore, L. D. (2010). First cycle of PISA (2000–2006)—International perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 15731774.
  • Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils' and teachers' views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 5(88), 683706.
  • Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren's constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617639.
  • Atkinson, W. (2008). Not all that was solid has melted into air (or liquid): A critique of Bauman on individualization and class in liquid modernity. The Sociological Review, 56(1), 117.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  • Bandura, A. (2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(6), 641658.
  • Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children's aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187206.
  • Barnes, G., McInerney, D., & Marsh, H. (2005). Exploring sex differences in science enrolment intentions: An application of the general model of academic choice. Australian Educational Researcher, 32(2), 124.
  • Bauman, Z. (2008). The art of life. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
  • Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
  • Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage.
  • Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
  • Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students' attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 19751998.
  • Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people's achievement-related choices in late modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3771.
  • Brickhouse, N. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282295.
  • Brickhouse, N., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441458.
  • Brickhouse, N., & Potter, J. T. (2001). Young women's scientific identity formation in an urban context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 965980.
  • Carlone, H. B. (2003). Innovative science within and against a culture of “achievement.” Science Education, 87, 307328.
  • Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., & Potter, W. H. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs and their relationship to course achievement in structured enquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104(6), 288300.
  • Cleaves, A. (2005). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 471486.
  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155159.
  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Côté, J. E. (1996). Sociological perspectives on identity formation: The culture-identity link and identity capital. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 417428.
  • Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, Singapore, March 8–10, 2000.
  • Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 1629.
  • Eccles, J. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585609.
  • Eccles, J. (2007). Where are all the women? In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren't more women in science? (pp. 199209). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 7889.
  • Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviours. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75146). San Francisco: W. H. Friedman.
  • Eccles, J., Barber, B., & Jozefowicz, D. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In W. B. Swann, Jr., J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence. (pp. 153192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 53(1), 109132.
  • European Round Table of Industrialists. (2009). Societal changes: Mathematics, science & technology education report. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
  • European Union. (2009). She Figures 2009—statistics and indicators on gender equity in science. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272299.
  • Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  • Fornäs, J. (1995). Cultural theory and late modernity. London: Sage.
  • Frønes, I. (1995). Among peers. On the meaning of peers in the process of socialization. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget AS).
  • Frønes, I., & Brusdal, R. (2001). På sporet av den nye tid. Kulturelle varsler for en nær fremtid [On the track of the new era. Cultural signs of a near future]. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS.
  • Furlong, A., & Cartmel, F. (2007). Young people and social change—New perspectives (2nd ed.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
  • Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain (2nd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Garg, K. C., & Gupta, B. M. (2003). Decline in science education in India—A case study at +2 and undergraduate level. Current Science, 84(9), 11981201.
  • Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
  • Government of Canada. (2007). Mobilizing science and technology to Canada's advantage: Executive summary. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
  • Hægeland, T., Kirkebøen, L. J., & Skogstrøm, J. F. B. (2007). Realfagskompetanse fra videregående opplæring og søkning til høyere utdanning [Science and mathematics qualifications from upper secondary school and subsequent applications to higher education] (2007/30). Oslo: Statistics Norway.
  • Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 9781003.
  • Hellevik, O. (2002). Forskningsmetode i sosiologi og statsvitenskap [Research methods in sociology and political science]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111127.
  • Hipkins, R., & Bolstad, R. (2005a). Staying in science. Student participation in secondary education and on transition to tertiary studies. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
  • Hipkins, R., & Bolstad, R. (2005b). Staying in science. Student participation in secondary education and on transition to tertiary studies (background paper). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
  • Hipkins, R., & Bolstad, R. (2006). Staying in science. An investigation of factors that encourage students to choose science as a study and career focus (summary pamphlet). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
  • Hutchinson, J., Stagg, P., & Bentley, K. (2009). Stem careers awareness timelines: Attitudes and ambitions towards science, technology, engineering and maths. Derby, England: International Centre for Guidance Studies, University of Derby.
  • Illeris, K., Katznelson, N., Simonsen, B., & Ulriksen, L. (2002). Ungdom, identitet og uddannelse [Youth, identity and education]. Frederiksberg, Denmark: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Institute of Physics. (2010). Institute of Physics: Education statistics. London: Institute of Physics. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Statistics/Education%20Statistics/page_2620.html.
  • Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Kozoll, R. H., & Osborne, M. D. (2004). Finding meaning in science: Lifeworld, identity, and self. Science Education, 88, 157181.
  • Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383409.
  • Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381395.
  • Kulas, J. T., Stachowski, A. A., & Haynes, B. A. (2008). Middle response functioning in Likert-responses to personality items. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 251259.
  • Lie, S., Angell, C., & Rohatgi, A. (2010). Fysikk i fritt fall? TIMSS advanced 2008 i videregående skole [Physics in free fall? TIMSS advanced 2008 in upper secondary school]. Oslo, Norway: Unipub.
  • Lloyd, J. E. V., Walsh, J., & Yailagh, M. S. (2005). Sex differences in performance attribution, self-efficacy, and achievement in mathematics: If I'm so smart, why don't I know it? Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 384408.
  • Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students' experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591613.
  • Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science. Understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. Armidale, New South Wales: University of New England.
  • Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 6070.
  • Miles, S. (2000). Youth lifestyles in a changing world. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
  • Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students' views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363381.
  • Nagy, G., Garrett, J., Trautwein, U., Cortina, K. S., Baumert, J., & Eccles, J. (2008). Gendered high school course selection as a precursor of gendered careers: The mediating role of self-concept and intrinsic value. In H. M. G. Watt & J. Eccles (Eds.), Gender and occupational outcomes (pp. 115143). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • National Science Foundation. (2006). Women, minorities and people with disabilities in science and engineering. National Science Foundation. Retrieved September 29, 2009, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.
  • Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2009a). Elevers fagvalg i videregående opplæring 2008–2009 [Students' upper secondary subject choices 2008–2009]. Oslo, Norway: Author.
  • Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2009b). Skolefakta—talet på elevar programfag [School facts—number of students in programme subjects]. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. Retrieved September 29, 2009 from http://skoleporten.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/rapportvisning.aspx?enhetsid=00&vurderingsomrade=fed86d60-df13-45c8-a544-457b84fc8216&skoletype=1&underomrade=777215a2-eef6-4245-951d-c2632fdd384e&fordeling=4&trinn=13#rapport.
  • Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2010). Forskrift om opptak til høyere utdanning fra opptak til studieåret 2009–2010 [Regulations for admission to higher education from admission to the study year 2009–2010]. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Retrieved July 12, 2010, from http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/dok/rundskriv/2007/Rundskriv-F-08-07.html?id=448819.
  • Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service. (2010, 23. 11. 2009). Poengberegning [Calculation of qualification credits]. Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service. Retrieved January 11, 2010, from http://www.samordnaopptak.no/info/poengberegning/.
  • Ogura, Y. (2005). Situation and problems of decrease of Japanese students in science and technology fields. Paper presented at the OECD/Japan Seminar, Tokyo, Japan, June 23–24, 2005.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007a). PISA 2006. Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: Author.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007b). PISA 2006: Volume 2 data. OECD. Retrieved August 2, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). Encouraging student interest in science and technology studies. Paris: Global Science Forum.
  • Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441467.
  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 10491079.
  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Tytler, R. (2009). Attitudes towards science: An update. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 13–17, 2009.
  • Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls' and boys' achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146159.
  • Ramberg, I. (2006). Realfag eller ikke? Elevers motivasjon for valg og bortvalg av realfag i videregående opplæring [Science and mathematics or not? Students' motivation for choosing or not choosing science and mathematics in upper secondary school] (NIFU STEP Arbeidsnotat 43/2006). Oslo: NIFU STEP—Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education.
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 6878.
  • Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden. Norwegian youth's orientation towards science—seen as signs of late modern identities. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
  • Schreiner, C., Henriksen, E. K., Sjaastad, J., Jensen, F., & Løken, M. (2010). Vilje-con-valg: Valg og bortvalg av realfag i høyere utdanning [Choosing—or not choosing—stem higher education in Norway]. Oslo: Norwegian Centre for Science Education.
  • Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth's identity construction—Two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 231247). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
  • Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34, 1422.
  • Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158176.
  • Simpkins, S., Davis-Kean, P., & Eccles, J. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 7083.
  • Sjaastad, J. (2010). The influence of parents, teachers, and celebrities in young people's choice of science in higher education. Paper presented at the XIV IOSTE Symposium, Bled, Slovenia, June 13–18, 2010.
  • Sjøberg, S. (2003). Science and technology education. Current challenges and possible solutions. In E. W. Jenkins (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol VIII, pp. 201228). Paris: UNESCO.
  • SPSS. (2009). SPSS (version 17.0). Chicago: IBM.
  • Stine, D. D., & Matthews, C. M. (2009). The U.S. science and technology workforce. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
  • Taconis, R., & Kessels, U. (2009). How choosing science depends on students' individual fit to “science culture.” International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 11151132.
  • Tytler, R. (2007). “Re-imagining science education”: Engaging students in science for Australia's future. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
  • Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Clark, J. C. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in stem across the primary-secondary school transition. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
  • Vaughan, K. (2005). The pathways framework meets consumer culture: Young people, careers, and commitment. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(2), 173186.
  • vilbli.no. (2010). Upper secondary education and training. Norwegian Directorate for Education, Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities, and Norwegian County Authorities. Retrieved June 28, 2010, from http://www.vilbli.no/4DACTION/WA_Forsiden?ASP=16996966&Ran=53611&Niva=V&Return=WA_kurstilbud&TP=28-06-10&Sprakvalg=True&Lan=3.
  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 6881.
  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265310.