New Perspectives in Science Education

Author: Victoria Ellingham (UK)
Affiliation: Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU)

Email: [email protected]

Persistent inequalities in science education participation are often attributed to differences in students’ motivation, interest, or aspiration. However, longitudinal evidence increasingly suggests that many students remain behaviourally engaged in science while experiencing declining science identity, weak recognition, and rising social risk. Existing motivational and identity frameworks, including Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2000) and Situated Expectancy–Value Theory (SEVT; Eccles and Wigfield, 2020), struggle to explain these fragile trajectories when engagement persists but belonging erodes (Carlone and Johnson, 2007).

This paper introduces the Equity-Informed Motivation and Identity Framework (EIMIF), an integrative model building on earlier work referred to as the Integrated Motivation and Identity Framework (IMIF), which centres recognition and multi-dimensional cost as structurally embedded mechanisms shaping science identity over time. EIMIF synthesises SDT ( Deci and Ryan, 2000), SEVT (Eccles and Wigfield, 2020), intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), and ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to conceptualise science identity as emerging from dynamic feedback loops between motivational processes, social recognition, perceived cost, and structural positioning. Within this framework, recognition and cost are understood not as individual psychological traits, but as socially and institutionally produced forces that enable or constrain students’ sense of belonging in science.

The study draws on two-wave longitudinal survey data from a non-selective secondary school in England (Time 1: n = 509; Time 2: n = 271; matched sample n = 179). Measures captured intrinsic motivation, task value expectancy, internal and aspirational science identity, identity engagement, external recognition, self-efficacy, and perceived effort, time, and social cost. Latent Profile Analysis identified six distinct motivational–identity profiles at each time point, reflecting heterogeneous configurations of engagement, value, recognition, and cost. Longitudinal analyses showed high profile stability and limited upward movement into identity-secure configurations. Critically, downward transitions were associated with rising perceived social and effort cost and inconsistent recognition, rather than declines in interest, value, or aspiration.

These findings challenge deficit accounts of disengagement and demonstrate that motivation alone is insufficient to sustain science identity. EIMIF offers a more comprehensive explanatory framework for understanding why students drift from science despite continued engagement, highlighting the need for recognition-rich, cost-aware approaches to science teaching and policy that prioritise identity security and equitable participation.

Key Words: science identity; recognition; perceived cost; equity in science education; student belonging

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design (Vol. 352). Harvard university press..

Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187-1218.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 61, 101859.