Final Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or room to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
PAP-21: Methods (Interview, Meta-Analysis, Validation)
Why do disadvantaged students from low SES Australian schools engage in and disengage from reading? An interview study
Griffith University, Australia
Recent international and national testing results in Australia indicate that disadvantaged students from culturally, linguistically and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds remain disproportionally represented among those who fail to attain the minimum benchmark in reading. However, international studies on reading motivation have seldom specifically taken disadvantaged students as a focus and therefore our understanding of what motivates disadvantaged students to read or avoid reading is rather limited. The current study was part of a large project investigating the development of reading engagement of a group of Year 5 Australian students. 44 disadvantaged students selected from low SES suburbs in Queensland were interviewed for 30 minutes on their reading experiences. These students were grouped into engaged and disengaged readers based on teachers’ evaluation using a bipolar scale assessing students’ engagement and disengagement behaviours. The interview findings showed that every engaged reader was clear about their reasons for reading while some of their disengaged counterparts were struggled to find a reason to engage in reading. In terms of reasons for reading disengagement, most of the engaged readers attributed it to dealing with other work commitment while disengaged readers explained it mainly in terms of boredom or being interrupted. These two groups of readers also differed in terms of what they liked and disliked about reading in their class. Taken together, the findings warn us the danger of taking disadvantaged students as a generic group. Different forms of intervention are required to address the motivational needs of these two groups of readers.
Learning Disabilities and Causal Attributions: A Meta-Analysis
1University of Groningen, Netherlands, The; 2University of Alberta, Canada
This meta-analysis examined differences between school-age students with learning disabilities (LD) and their non-LD peers with regard to causal attributions in 30 studies including 167 effect sizes and 2775 students. Results showed that students with LD scored significantly lower than their non-LD peers on internal attribution for success (d = -.51) as well as on internal attribution for failure (d = -.23). Further analysis of specific causal factors revealed that students with LD scored significantly lower than their non-LD peers on attributions of success to ability and to effort, while students with LD scored significantly higher on attributions of success to task ease and of failure to luck. Among several potential moderators, only the proportion of girls in LD subsample significantly explained between study variance in effect size for failure to effort.
Factor Structure of the Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs Scale in a Portuguese Sample (P-BMPN)
Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da UC, Portugal
Previous research on Basic Need Satisfaction provided sound support for the good psychometric properties of BMPN scale (Sheldon & Gunz, 2009), using post-secondary student’s samples. In this paper we intend to extend the exam of the psychometric properties of the original the BMPN, aiming to generate improved evidence for the dimensionality of the need satisfaction construct and its invariance across populations (Sheldon & Hilpert, in press). A sample of 379 Portuguese secondary school students was administered the 18-item Portuguese version of the Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs Scale (P-BMPN; Cordeiro, Paixão & Lens, in press). Following a multi-trait (autonomy, competence and relatedness) and multi-method (satisfaction and dissatisfaction) approach to needs construct, it was examined the extent to which the constructs under analysis produced evidence of convergent and discriminant validity (Sheldon & Hilpert, in press). A 5-factor model was tested by 4 nested-model comparisons, using the chi square difference test and change in CFI as Goodness of Fit Indexes (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). Results matrix produced evidence of convergent and discriminant construct validity for the two method factors but did not differentiate adequately between one general need factor or three related but distinguishable need factors. Adequate fit was found for models 1, 3, and 5, but not for models 2 and 4. Taken together these results suggest the structure of the need satisfaction construct, as measured by the BMPN, need to be further explored and refined.
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Conference: ICM 2012
|Conference Software -
ConfTool Pro 2.6.51
© 2001 - 2012 by H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany