Session Information
05 SES 03 A, Democracy, Citizenship, Safety and Voice
Paper Session
Contribution
In The Finnish basic education curriculum (National core curriculum for basic education 2014, 2016), goals related to safety education are emphasized in a total of 11 different subjects at different grade levels. Safety-related goals mainly focus on prevention and preparedness in everyday life. (Puolitaival & Lindfors, 2019; Somerkoski & Lindfors, 2021.) Finnish schools have strongly relied on cooperation with authorities and organizations in safety education. Rescue services are one of the schools' essential partners. Accident prevention is a statutory task of the rescue services (Rescue Act (379) 2011).
An excellent example of long-term cooperation in the field of safety education is the NouHätä! safety training programme, which is aimed at middle school 8th graders. The main goal of the NouHätä! programme is to prevent fires and other accidents, respond to emergencies and prepare for social disruptions. In the programme, training is carried out in interprofessional cooperation between the rescue services’ personnel and school teachers (Mertsalmi & Kivelä, 2020). Even though the Nouhätä! programme has been implemented for more than a quarter of a century, it has received little scholarly attention. The success of the programme, like many others, is measured mainly by the number of participants. The aim of the study is to identify groups of learners with diverse learning outcomes and goal orientations and to find out how the materials and methods used in safety education meet the needs of diverse learners.
In addition to having different backgrounds, pupils are also oriented towards different learning goals. Individuals can have many different goal orientations simultaneously and these are formed through social interaction, for example, through the interpretation of expectations, feedback and comments. Over the years, several different classifications of goal orientation have been formulated, differing mainly in the number of goals and their justification (e.g. (Dweck, 1986; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Nicholls, 1984). In this study, achievement goal orientations are divided into mastery goal orientation, performance goal orientation, and avoidance goal orientation.
Achievement goal orientation as a concept describes an individual’s attitudes towards and expectations of their performance. Identical learning situations can be perceived differently by different students. Pupils may have multiple achievement goal orientations at play simultaneously. These vary according to students’ motivational factors, desired learning outcomes and interpretations of various situations. Specific goal orientation profiles can be generated according to specific, qualitatively different characteristics. Individual differences in goal orientation are associated with academic performance and well-being (Lerang et al., 2019; Niemivirta et al., 2019; Tuominen-Soini et al., 2008; Volet et al., 2019). Studies on goal orientation provide insight into why certain circumstances and methods have a varying impact on students. In their study, Volet, Jones and Vauras (2019) conclude that students’ favourable attitudes towards learning are more important than whether students have prior knowledge of the subject or not. They also point out that if some students in a group setting are determined to learn, they influence their peers to be proactive learners also (Volet et al., 2019). Students with different goal orientations benefit from different kinds of learning assignments and methods of instruction. Recognizing students’ goal orientations is a key factor for teachers when adapting their teaching to meet students' needs.
The research questions for the study are:
- What variables explain students’ learning outcomes in the NouHätä! safety education programme?
- What learning methods and materials of the safety education programme did students with different goal orientations prefer?
Method
The target group of this study was 8th-grade students who participated in the NouHätä! programme during the spring term of 2020. We collected the data immediately at the end of the programme. The survey data were collected online with a Webropol questionnaire, which was sent to all the schools that took part in the programme. Participation was voluntary. The questionnaire consisted of four parts: background variable questions, goal orientation questions, a safety test measuring safety competence, and questions related to the implementation of the NouHätä! programme; such as materials and methods used in schools. The data examined in this study is part of a larger study that examined learning outcomes in a fire safety programme. Respondents' safety competence was measured with a set of 12 statements and their goal orientation (Volet ym., 2019), which was assessed based on a set of 20 questions. The reliability of the goal orientation questions was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, after which summary variables were constructed. In order to get a more accurate picture of the different types of students' learning abilities, we decided to group the respondents into clusters using cluster analysis. In addition to goal orientations, the clustering accounted for school performance and learning outcomes of the programme. A quantitative research design was used in this descriptive study. As the responses were relatively normally distributed and the data were large, it was possible to use parametric methods in the analysis. In addition to basic descriptive and cluster analysis, correlation and regression analyses were performed on the data. (Tähtinen et al., 2020; Whatley, 2022)
Expected Outcomes
A total of 1398 (N=1398) comprehensive school 8th grade students responded to the survey. Of all respondents, 701 reported being girls and 639 boys. The average value of the respondents' previous school report as 8.17 (scale is 4-10) and the safety test average score was 6.4 (scale is 0-12). The study grouped the learners into three clusters. Students in cluster one (n=706) performed well in school and got good learning results in the safety education test. They also most often had a high mastery goal orientation. This cluster included 50,5 % of all students. Students in cluster two performed weakly in school and most often had a low mastery and performance goal orientation. However, their learning outcomes in the safety education test were satisfactory. This cluster included 22,0 % of all students. Students in cluster three performed the weakest in school and had high performance and avoidance goal orientation. In the test they also performed the weakest. This cluster included 26,5 % of all students. Overall, the results show that those who performed well in school, also did well on the safety test. The way in which teaching and learning situation was organized resulted a significant positive correlation with the learning outcomes. Thus, practical training was clearly linked to better performance in the NouHätä! programme. Moreover, the interprofessional collaboration seems to lead better results than safety teaching carried out by a school teacher or a rescue authority alone. The results challenge teachers’ and experts’ collaboration in safety education. In addition, there is a clear demand to guide diverse learners’ towards using materials and methods that meet their needs and benefit their interest and motivation to achieve better learning outcomes.
References
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational Processes Affecting Learning. The American psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040 Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and Avoidance Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: A Mediational Analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461 Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Pearson. Lerang, M. S., Ertesvåg, S. K., & Havik, T. (2019). Perceived Classroom Interaction, Goal Orientation and Their Association with Social and Academic Learning Outcomes. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 63(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1466358 Lindfors, E., Lundberg, A., & Kuusisto, S. (2021). Students’ Goal Orientations During a Pedagogical Innovation Process—A study in craft, design and technology teacher education. Technology in our hands. Creative pedagogy and ambitious teacher education. 221–232. https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/4381/3852 Mertsalmi, A., & Kivelä, E. (2020). NouHätä! Käsikirja. Suomen Pelastusalan Keskusjärjestö SPEK. National core curriculum for basic education 2014. (2016). Finnish National Board of Education. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological review, 91(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328 Niemivirta, M., Pulkka, A.-T., Tapola, A., & Tuominen, H. (2019). Achievement Goal Orientations: A Person-Oriented Approach (ss. 566–616). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.025 Nilsen, P., Hudson, D. S., Kullberg, A., Timpka, T., Ekman, R., & Lindqvist, K. (2004). Making sense of safety. Injury Prevention, 10(2), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2004.005322 Pelastuslaki (379) 2011. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2011/20110379 Puolitaival, M., & Lindfors, E. (2019). Turvallisuuskasvatuksen tavoitteiden tilannekuva perusopetuksessa – dokumenttiaineistoon perustuvaa pohdintaa. Teoksessa Tutkimuksesta luokkahuoneisiin (ss. 119–138). Jyväskylän yliopisto. Scheerens, J. (Toim.). (2014). Effectiveness of Time Investments in Education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00924-7 Somerkoski, B., & Lindfors, E. (2021). Turvallisuuspedagogiikka perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteissa. Teoksessa Opetuksen ja oppimisen ytimessä. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/333969 Ståhlberg, J., Tuominen, H., Pulkka, A., & Niemivirta, M. (2021). Students’ perfectionistic profiles: Stability, change, and associations with achievement goal orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 58(1), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22444 Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). Achievement goal orientations and subjective well-being: A person-centred analysis. Learning and instruction, 18(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.003 Tähtinen, J., Laakkonen, E., Broberg, M., & Tähtinen, R. (2020). Tilastollisen aineiston käsittelyn ja tulkinnan perusteita (2. uudistettu painos.). Turun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden laitos. Volet, S., Jones, C., & Vauras, M. (2019). Attitude-, group- and activity-related differences in the quality of preservice teacher students’ engagement in collaborative science learning. Learning and individual differences, 73, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.05.002 Whatley, M. (2022). Introduction to quantitative analysis for international educators. Springer.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.