This exploratory sequential research on students' motivational factors and attitudes towards 122 BSED-Science Major students at Divine Word College of San Jose found that the student-respondents are aged 18-20 years, mostly female, and from lower-and middle-income families.To analyze the qualitative data, Colaizzi's method was used, while descriptive and inferential statistics were used to treat the quantitative data.The five motivational factors derived from the study were institutional factors, holistic factors, social factors, practical accessibility, and community engagement.The results showed that students were highly interested (4.27).Similarly, the attitude toward the BSED Science program was also favorable (4.29) in the cognitive (4.33), affective (4.36), and behavioral (4.19) dimensions.Testing the hypotheses showed that institutional factors had a negative impact on motivation, while social support and community accessibility significantly enhanced motivation.Holistic factors did not significantly influence the variables.Also, motivation plays a key role in the cognitive, affective, and behavioral orientations of students toward science education.These findings underscore the role of institutional support and external factors in reinforcing student motivation and engagement.Thus, helping in the preparation of action plans.The study notes that barriers to motivation can be addressed by enhancing institutional policies, resources, and support systems.Additionally, the development of interactive, student-centered learning experiences was identified as a significant contributor to increased involvement in science studies.Social engagement and the implementation of environmental accessibility improvements were also mentioned as key to keeping students academically enrolled.Addressing those would encourage institutions to create a more encouraging and supportive environment for future science educators.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balmes et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: