Advertisement

MEASURING SCIENCE INTEREST: RASCH VALIDATION OF THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY

  • Richard Lawrence LambEmail author
  • Leonard Annetta
  • Jeannette Meldrum
  • David Vallett
Article

ABSTRACT

Students in the USA have fallen near the bottom in international competitions and tests in mathematics and science. It is thought that extrinsic factors such as family, community, and schools might be more influential than intrinsic attitudes toward science interest. However, there are relatively few valid and reliable measures of intrinsic factors such as interest relating to science. With the lack of intrinsic measures, it is difficult to determine the impact of extrinsic factors on the intrinsic construct. A fuller picture of the factors affecting intrinsic factors such as science interest will allow interventions to become more refined and targeted. Several studies suggest that student interest toward science affects the likelihood of the student pursuing advanced courses in science. The goal of this paper is to establish the validity and reliability of the Science Interest Survey and to determine if the survey meets the formal requirements of measurements as defined by the Rasch model. Results using both IRT and CRT analysis suggest that Science Interest Survey is an adequate measure of the unidimensional construct known as science interest. Results further suggest the Science Interest Survey is a valid and reliable measure for assessing science interest levels.

KEY WORDS

Rasch model Science Interest Survey USA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ainley, M., Hidi, S. & Berndorff, D. (1999). Situational and individual interest in cognitive and affective aspects of learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meetings. Montreal, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainely, M., Hidi, S. & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning and the psychological process that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainley, M. (2006). Connection with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition of interest. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B. & Ginns, I. S. (2003). Theoretical perspectives on learning in an informal setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Annetta, L., Minogue, M., Holmes, S. & Cheng, M. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics, Computers in Education, 53(1), 74–85.Google Scholar
  6. Atwater, M. M., Wiggins, J. & Gardner, C. M. (1995). A study of urban middle school students with high and low attitudes toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 665–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercises of control. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Barton, A., Tan, E. & Rivet, A. (2010). Creating spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Betemps, E., Smith, R. & Baker, D. (2003). Measurement precision of the clinician administered PTSD scale: A Rasch model analysis. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4(1), 59–69.Google Scholar
  10. Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davis, C., Bassett, P. & Chowne, A. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group work on pupil–pupil and teacher–pupil interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 750–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Michelli, N. (2006). Complex by design. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Business Roundtable (2005). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation initiative. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from http://www.itic.org/archives/TAP%20Statement.pdf
  13. Bulunuz, M. & Jarret, O. (2010). Developing an interest in science: Background experience of preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5(1), 65–84.Google Scholar
  14. Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students’ voices with voices of school, science teachers and popular science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
  17. Cronbach, L. & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.Google Scholar
  18. Cooney, S. (2001). Closing gaps in middle grades. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 479 781.Google Scholar
  19. Edgar, K. & Fox, N. (2006). Temperamental contributions to children’s performance in an emotion-word processing task: A behavioral and electrophysiological study. Brain and Cognition, 65(1), 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Embretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engineering Workforce Commission (2008) Engineering and technology degrees, 2007 (Washington, DC). www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/tabc-8.pdf
  22. Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from Museums. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. 272 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Fabrigar, L., MacCallum, R., Wegener, D. & Strahan, E. (1999). Evaluation the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher, J. (1992). Changing AIDS-risk behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 455–474.Google Scholar
  25. Fredricks, J., Alfeld, C. & Eccles, J. (2010). Developing and fostering passion in academic and nonacademic domains. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. George, R. & Kaplan, D. (1997). A structural model of parent and teacher influences on science attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence from NELS: 88. Science Education, 82, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D. & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  28. Harackiewicz, J. Durik, A, Barron, K., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. & Tauer, J. (2007). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 105–122. Google Scholar
  29. Harmner, A. & Columba, L. (2010). Engaging middle school students in nanoscale science, nanotechnology, and electron microscopy. Journal of Nano Education, 2(1), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571.Google Scholar
  31. Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howe, A. & Jones, L. (1998). Engaging children in science (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Huang, M. (2006). Flow, enduring, and situational involvement in the Web environment: A tripartite second-order examination. Psychology and Marketing, 23(5), 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson, K., Alexander, J., Spencer, S., Leibham, M. & Neitzel, C. (2004). Factors associate with the early emergence of intense interests within conceptual domains. Cognitive Development, 19(3), 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnston, R. C. & Viadero, D. (2000). Unmet promise: Raising minority achievement. Edweek.org.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, M. & Eick, C. (2007). Implementing inquiry kit curriculum: Obstacles, adaptations, and practical knowledge development in two middle school science teachers. Science Education, 91(3), 492–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim, H. (2005). Learning implicit user interest hierarchy for web personalization, A dissertation submitted to Florida Institute of Technology, In Computer Science.Google Scholar
  39. Krapp, A., Hidi, S. & Renninger, K. (1992). The role of interest and learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Krapp, A. (2007). An educational–psychological conceptualization of interest. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lamoureux, E., Pallant, J., Pesudovs, K., Hassell, J. & Keefe, J. (2006). The impact of vision impairment questionnaire: An evaluation of its measurement properties using Rasch analysis. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 47(11), 4732–4741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lanzilotti, R. & Montinaro, F. (2009). Influence of students’ motivation on their experience with e-learning systems: And experimental study. Universal Access in Human and Computer Interaction, 56(16), 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4), 324.Google Scholar
  44. Linacre, J. M. (1997). Investigating judge local independence. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 11(1), 546–547.Google Scholar
  45. Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(2), 103–122.Google Scholar
  46. Linacre, J. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness, Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 85–106.Google Scholar
  47. Miller, M. B. (1995). Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 2(3), 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Program for International Student Assessment. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2003highlights.asp.
  49. Nieswandt, M. (2006). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Papanastasiou, C. (2002). School, teaching and family influence on student attitudes toward science: Based on TIMSS data for Cyprus. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prieto, L., Alonso, J. & Lamarca, R. (2003). Classical test theory versus Rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rasch, G. (1960). Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, Oxford, England: Nielsen & Lydiche. Xiii, 184.Google Scholar
  53. Rennie, L. J. & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). The communication of science and technology: Past, present and future agendas. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 759–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reynolds, A. J. (1991). The middle schooling process: Influences on science and mathematics achievement from the longitudinal study of American youth. Adolescence, 26, 133–159.Google Scholar
  55. Rheinberg, F. & Vollmeyer, R. (1998). Does motivation affect performance via persistence. Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 293–309.Google Scholar
  56. Rust, J. & Golombok, S. (2009). Modern psychometrics: The science of psychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning, what we know and what we don’t know. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. Renninger & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender (pp. 91–104). Kiel, Germany: IPN.Google Scholar
  58. Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T. R., Oliver, J. S. & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research on the affective dimension of science learning. In D. L. Grabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  59. Simpson, R. D. & Troost, K. M. (1982). Influences on commitment to and learning of science among adolescent students. Science Education, 66, 763–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith, F. M. & Hausafus, C. O. (1998). Relationship of family support and ethnic minority students’ achievement in science and mathematics. Science Education, 82, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schoon, I., Ross, A. & Martin, P. (2007). Science related careers: Aspirations and outcomes in two British cohort studies. Equal Opportunities International, 26(2), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smetana, J., Campione-Barr, N. & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sullenger, K. (2006). Beyond school walls: Informal education and the culture of science. Education Canada, 46, 15–18.Google Scholar
  65. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V. & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Talton, E. L. & Simpson, R. D. (1985). Relationships between peer and individual attitudes toward science among adolescent students. Science Education, 69, 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Talton, E. L. & Simpson, R. D. (1986). Relationships of attitudes toward self, family, and school with attitude toward science among adolescents. Science Education, 70, 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thurstone, L. (1947). Multiple Factor Analysis, Thurstone, LL., University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  69. Wright, B. D. (1996). Reliability and separation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 9(4), 472.Google Scholar
  70. Yager, R. E. & Penick, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of four age groups toward science classes, teachers, and the value of science. Science Education, 70, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zacharia, Z. & Barton, A. (2004). Urban middle-school students’ attitudes toward a defined science. Science Education, 88, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Lawrence Lamb
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leonard Annetta
    • 1
  • Jeannette Meldrum
    • 2
  • David Vallett
    • 1
  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations