Testing the Information Distortion Model for Turkish Students’ Self-Concept and Interest in Science

Abstract

The information distortion model (IDM) explains the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and students’ interest or self-concept by considering achievement. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the IDM of Turkish middle school students’ academic interest and self-concept in science by considering the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2019 data and multilevel modeling analyses were used to achieve the aims of the current study. Three models were tested for each construct (self-concept and academic interest). The first model used a random comparison; in the second model, a comparison was made by considering the achievement of the students and in the third model, a comparison was made by considering school achievement. The findings of the students’ academic interest in science confirmed the IDM for model 2 and 3; on the other hand, surprisingly, regarding self-concept, only model 1 confirmed the IDM. Furthermore, the BFLPE was noticed in both self-concept and academic interest in science.

Keywords

• Self-concept
• Interest
• Big fish little pond effect
• Socio-economic status
• Science education

References

1. Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Fiedler, K., Fiedler, S., Funder, D. C., Kliegl, R., Nosek, B. A., Perugini, M., Roberts, B. W., Schmitt, M., Van Aken, M. A. G., Weber, H., & Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1919
2. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational psychology review, 15(1), 1-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382
3. Börkan, B., & Bakış, O. (2016). Determinants of academic achievement of middle schoolers in Turkey. Ededucational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.6.0227
4. Crandall, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 93-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002
5. Fang, J., Huang, X., Zhang, M., Huang, F., Li, Z., & Yuan, Q. (2018). The big-fish-little- pond effect on academic self-concept: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01569
6. Fishbein, B., Foy, P., & Yin, L. (2021). TIMSS 2019 User Guide for the International Database (2nd ed.). Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-database/
7. Flemming Smiley, W. (2015). Exploring Listwise Deletion and Multilevel Multiple Imputation in Linear Two-Level Organizational Models. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Carolina.
8. Gümüş, S. (2021). Gölge eğitim faaliyetlerinin sosyal politika bağlamında değerlendirilmesi: Bursa örneği. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Yalova University.

9. Hidi, S., & Ainley, M. (2002). Interest and adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 247–275). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Kim, J. & Curry, J. (1977). The treatment of missing data in multivariate analyses. Sociological Methods and Research, 6, 215-240.
10. Maaz, K., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Educational transitions and differential learning environments: How explicit between‐school tracking contributes to social inequality in educational outcomes. Child Development Perspectives, 2(2), 99-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00048.x
11. Marsh, H. W. (2004). Negative effects of school-average achievement on academic self-concept: A comparison of the big-fish-little-pond effect across Australian states and territories. Australian Journal of Education, 48(1), 5-26.
12. Marsh, H. W., Abduljabbar, A. S., Morin, A. J., Parker, P., Abdelfattah, F., Nagengast, B., & Abu-Hilal, M. M. (2015). The big-fish-little-pond effect: Generalizability of social comparison processes over two age cohorts from Western, Asian, and Middle Eastern Islamic countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037485
13. Marsh, H. W., Kong, C.-K., & Hau, K.-T. (2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: Counterbalancing contrast and reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.337
14. Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Guo, J., Basarkod, G., Niepel, C., & Van Zanden, B. (2020). Illusory gender-equality paradox, math self-concept, and frame-of-reference effects: New integrative explanations for multiple paradoxes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000306
15. Marsh, H. W., Seaton, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Hau, K. T., O’Mara, A. J., & Craven, R. G. (2008). The big-fish–little-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: Implications for theory, methodology, and future research. Educational psychology review, 20(3), 319-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9075-6
16. Parker, P. D., Schoon, I., Tsai, Y.-M., Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Achievement, agency, gender, and socioeconomic background as predictors of postschool choices: A multicontext study. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1629–1642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029167
17. Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Guo, J., Anders, J., Shure, N., & Dicke, T. (2018). An information distortion model of social class differences in math self-concept, intrinsic value, and utility value. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000215
18. Parker, P., Dicke, T., Guo, J., Basarkod, G., & Marsh, H. (2021a). Ability stratification predicts the size of the big-fish-little-pond effect. Educational Researcher, 50(6), 334-344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20986
19. Parker, P., Sanders, T., Anders, J., Sahdra, B., Shure, N., Jerrim, J., & Cull, N. (2021b). Does school average achievement explain the effect of socioeconomic status on math and reading interest? A test of the Information Distortion Model. Learning and Instruction, 73(April 2020), 101432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101432
20. Parker, P. D., Van Zanden, B., & Parker, R. B. (2017). Girls get smart, boys get smug: Historical changes in gender differences in math, literacy, and academic social comparison and achievement. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. learninstruc.2017.09.002
21. Polat, S. (2014, June). Türkiye’nin 2023 vizyonu ve eğitimde “orta kalite tuzağı”. SETA.
22. Renninger, K. A. (2000). How might the development of individual interest contribute to the conceptualization of intrinsic motivation? In C. Sansome & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. New York: Academic
23. Press.Yin, L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). Creating and interpreting the TIMSS 2019 context questionnaire scales. In M. O. Martin, M. von Davier, & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), Methods and Procedures: TIMSS 2019 Technical Report (pp. 16.1-16.331). Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/methods/chapter-16.html
24. Seaton, M., Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2010). Big-fish-little-pond effect: Generalizability and moderation—Two sides of the same coin. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 390-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209350493
25. Senler, B., & Sungur, S. (2009). Parental influences on students’ self-concept, task value beliefs, and achievement in science. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 106-117. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600001529
26. Shavelson, Wang, Z. (2020). When Large-Scale Assessments Meet Data Science: The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect in Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Mathematics Across Nations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579545