Psychometric Properties of Context-Specific Measures of Students’ Interest and Value in Learning Science : A Multinational Examination

Ham EunHye; Jang Hyesuk; Shin TaeSeob

서지반출

영문초록

This study aims to examine how context-specific measures of students' interest and value differ from their context-general measures in psychometric properties across countries. Using PISA2006 Science data, differential effects of item context on assessing interest and value were illustrated in both the individual and country levels. The main findings are as follows: First, correlation between context-specific and context-general measures tended to be slightly higher in value than in interest. Second, for association with achievement, specific value was a significant predictor of science achievement after controlling general value. Third, the impact of item context appeared to be larger in interest than in value. Lastly, there were significant differences among countries in the discrepancy between context-specific and context-general measures and in the association with achievement. The implications of these findings and further research were discussed.

국문초록

이 연구는 학생들의 학습에 대한 흥미와 가치를 측정하는 데에 문항의 맥락이 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 를 탐색하기 위한 목적으로 수행되었다. 과학 교과의 특정 주제들을 구체적 맥락으로 제시하여 측정한 흥 미와 가치의 점수가 과학 교과라는 일반적 맥락에서 측정한 점수들과 얼마나 다른지, 성취도를 예측하는 데에 추가적으로 유용한지를 포함하여 문항 맥락의 효과를 개인 수준과 국가 수준에서 검토하였다. PISA2006 과학 자료를 활용하였으며, 주요 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 맥락 일반적 가치와 맥락 구 체적 가치 간의 상관이 맥락 일반적 흥미와 맥락 구체적 흥미 간의 상관보다 다소 높았다. 둘째, 구체적 맥락에서 측정한 가치는 일반적 맥락에서 측정한 가치를 통제한 후에도 학업성취도를 유의하게 예측하였 다. 셋째, 문항 맥락의 효과는 가치에서보다 흥미에서 큰 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로, 맥락 일반적 측정 치와 맥락 구체적 측정치 간의 차이의 크기, 성취도와의 연합의 정도는 국가별로 다소 차이를 보였다.

키워드

Item context Context-specific measure Interest Value Second-order factor model 문항 맥락 학습에 대한 흥미 학습에 대한 가치 이차요인모형

참고문헌 (36건)

Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 51–71.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
Artelt, C. (2005). Cross-cultural approaches to measuring motivation. Educational Assessment, 10, 231-244.
Baranik, L. E., Barron, K. E., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Examining specific versus general measures of achievement goals. Human Performance, 232, 155-172.
Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87-98.
Bing, M. N., Whanger, J. C., Davison, H. K., & VanHook, J. B. (2004). Incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale score: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 891, 150-157.
Bowling, N. A., Wang, Q., Tang, H. Y., & Kennedy, K. D. (2010). A comparison of general and work-specific measures of core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 559-566.
Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd Ed.). New York: Routledge.
Bybee, R., & Mccrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes : Perspectives from PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7–26.
Chiu, M. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2009). Calibration of reading self-concept and reading achievement among 15-year-olds: Cultural differences in 34 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(3), 372-386.
Drechsel, B., Carstensen, C., & Prenzel, M. (2011). The Role of Content and Context in PISA Interest Scales : A study of the embedded interest items in the PISA 2006 science assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 73–95.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. (pp. 52-72). New York: The Guilford Press.
Fulmer, S., & Frijters, J. (2009). A review of self-report and alternative approaches in the measurement of student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 219-246.
Grisay, A., & Monseur, C. (2007). Measuring the equivalence of item difficulty in the various versions of an international test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(1), 69-86.
Harp, S., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21stcentury. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.
Holtz, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2005). Testing the rules of justice: The effects of frame-of-reference and pre-test validity information on personality test responses and test perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(1), 75–86.
Huang, S.L., & Waxman, H.C. (1995). Motivation and learning environmental differences between Asian American and white middle school students in mathematics. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 208-219.
Hunthausen, J. M., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Hammer, L. B. (2003). A field of study of frame-of-reference effects on personality validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 545-551.
Kim, U., & Park, Y. (2006). Indigenous psychological analysis of academic achievement in Korea: The influence of self-efficacy, parents, and culture. International Journal of Psychology, 41(4), 287-292.
Lee, J. (2009). Universal and specifics of math self-concept, math self-efficacy, and math anxiety across 41 PISA 2003 participating countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(3), 355-365.
Lievens, F., De Corte, W., & Schollaert, E. (2008). A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 268-279.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD/PISA.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: OECD/PISA.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Renninger, K.A., & Hidi., S. (2011). Revisiting the Conceptualization, Measurement, and Generation of Interest. Educational Psychologist 46(3): 168-184.
Rijmen, F. (2010). Formal relations and an empirical comparison among the bi-factor, the testlet, and a second-order multidimensional IRT model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47(3), 361-372.
Robie, C., Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., & Zickar, M. J. (2000). Effects on item context specificity on the measurement equivalence of a personality inventory. Organizational Research Methods, 34, 348-365.
Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 607–620.
Shaffer, J. A., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 445-494.
Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Torsheim, T., Samdal, O., Rasmussen, M., Freeman, J., Griebler, R., & Dur, W. (2010). Cross-national measurement invariance of the teacher and classmate support scale. Social Indicators Research, 105(1), 145-160.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30, 1-35.

구매하기 (5,100)

장바구니

영문초록

국문초록

목차

키워드

참고문헌 (36건)