Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of a Measure of STEM Interest for Adolescents

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students’ declining performance in science and mathematics is an issue of great international concern. Recently, educators and researchers have begun to focus on affective factors such as interest to better understand STEM learning and persistence. Therefore, there is a need for effective measures of STEM interest that allow it to be tracked over time and to provide opportunities for early interventions by educators. One such instrument was recently developed to measure youth interest in STEM as a general construct and in four domains associated with STEM: earth and space science, life science, technology and engineering, and mathematics. In this paper, we explore the psychometric properties of the measure scales by administering the instrument to a large sample of youth from both a traditional and STEM-focused school and examining theorized relationships using confirmatory factor analysis as part of a larger structural equation model. Results provided support for a single latent dimension of STEM interest, confirmed the existence of the four individual STEM interest dimensions, and provided evidence of structural and generalizability validity. We conclude that the instrument provides a sufficient means to measure STEM interest for adolescent youth within a variety of populations and educational contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 150–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). The Australian Curriculum, Version 7.3, January 5, 2015. Sydney, NSW: ACARA.

  • Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12, 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck Institute. (n.d.). What is project-based learning (PBL)? Retrieved 24 October 2018, from http://www.bie.org/about/what_pbl.

  • Burke, L., Francis, K., & Shanahan, M. (2014, July). A horizon of possibilities: A definition of STEM education. Paper presented at the STEM 2014 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

  • Cattell, R. B. (1956). Personality and motivation theory based on structural measurement. In J. L. McCary (Ed.), Psychology of personality (pp. 51–98). New York, NY: Logos.

  • DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2011). Young children’s aspiration in science: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 1037–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov, D. (2012) Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

  • Elliot, B., Oly, K., McArthur, J., & Clark, B. (2001). The effect of an interdisciplinary algebra/science course on students’ problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(6), 811–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1.

  • Falk, J. H., Staus, N. L., Dierking, L. D., Penuel, W., Wyld, J., & Bailey, D. (2016). Understanding youth STEM interest pathways within a single community: the Synergies project. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(4), 369-384.

  • Everett, L. J., Imbrie, P. K., & Morgan, J. (2000). Integrated curricula: Purpose and design. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education: What does mathematics have to offer? In M. Marshman (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 237–244). Sydney, Australia: MERGA.

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D. (2014). Attending to affect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 821–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkness, W. (1965). Properties of extended hypergeometric distributions. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36(3), 938–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self- concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2000). Examining the effects of a reformed junior high school science class on students’ math achievement. School Science and Mathematics, 100(8), 419–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (2002). An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to self- determination theory. In E. Deci & R. Ryan (Eds.), The handbook of self-determination research (pp. 405–427). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

  • Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petrie, K. (2015). Development of a cognition-priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 410-437.

  • Lesseig, K., Firestone, J., Morrison, J., Slavit, D., & Nelson, T. (2019). An analysis of cultural influences on STEM schools: Similarities and differences across K-12 contexts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 17(3), 449-466.

  • Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltese, A. V., Melki, C. S., & Wiebke, H. L. (2014). The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 98, 937–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D., Erickson, E., Wu, S., & Martinez, A. (2012). Compendium of research instruments for STEM education. Part 2: Measuring students’ content knowledge, reasoning skills, and psychological attributes. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates. Retrieved on July 27, 2014 from http://cadrek12.org/announcements/findingsdr-k-12-stem-school-study-s3-project Retrieved July 27, 2014.

  • Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The students, the academy, the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM.

  • National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2013). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Canberra: Australian Government.

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) for America's future. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

  • Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(4), 375–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development. In R. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 167–187). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Ruo, B., Baker, D. W., Thompson, J. A., Murray, P. K., Huber, G. M., & Sudano, J. J., Jr. (2008). Patients with worse mental health report more physical limitations after adjustment for physical performance. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(4), 417–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education) – A comparative study of students’ views of science and science education (pdf) (Acta Didactica 4/2004). Oslo, Norway: Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.

  • Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. An overview and key findings. Retrieved from. http://roseproject.no/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf.

  • Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society Science Policy Centre. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education. London, England: The Royal Society.

  • UK Department for Education (2015). National curriculum in England: Science programmes of study. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study.

  • Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: Inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

    Nancy L. Staus & Lynn Dierking

  2. Washington State University, Vancouver, WA, USA

    Kristin Lesseig

  3. University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Richard Lamb

  4. Institute for Learning Innovation, Portland, OR, USA

    John Falk

Authors
  1. Nancy L. Staus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristin Lesseig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Lamb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Falk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lynn Dierking
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy L. Staus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Staus, N.L., Lesseig, K., Lamb, R. et al. Validation of a Measure of STEM Interest for Adolescents. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 279–293 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09970-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09970-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation