Ferrell2016 - Connecting Achievement Motivation To Performance in General Chemistry

View Article Online
Chemistry
View Journal
Education Research
and Practice
Accepted Manuscript
This article can be cited before page numbers have been issued, to do this please use: B. Ferrell, M. M.
Phillips and J. Barbera, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2016, DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C.
This is an Accepted Manuscript, which has been through the

Royal Society of Chemistry peer review process and has been
accepted for publication.
Accepted Manuscripts are published online shortly after

acceptance, before technical editing, formatting and proof reading.
Using this free service, authors can make their results available
to the community, in citable form, before we publish the edited
article. We will replace this Accepted Manuscript with the edited
and formatted Advance Article as soon as it is available.
You can find more information about Accepted Manuscripts in the

Information for Authors.
Please note that technical editing may introduce minor changes

to the text and/or graphics, which may alter content. The journal’s
standard Terms & Conditions and the Ethical guidelines still
apply. In no event shall the Royal Society of Chemistry be held
responsible for any errors or omissions in this Accepted Manuscript
or any consequences arising from the use of any information it
contains.
www.rsc.org/cerp
Page 1 of 24 Chemistry Education Research and Practice
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
Connecting achievement motivation to performance in general chemistry
4
5
6 Brent Ferrell1, Michael M. Phillips2, and Jack Barbera3
1
Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Lee University, Cleveland, TN
Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

7
2
8 School of Psychological Sciences, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
3
9 Department of Chemistry, Portland State University, Portland, OR
10 Email: jack.barbera@pdx.edu
11
12
13
14 Abstract
15 Student success in chemistry is inherently tied to motivational and other
16 affective processes. We investigated three distinct constructs tied to motivation:
17 self-efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs. These variables were measured twice
Published on 10 August 2016. Downloaded on 11/08/2016 01:15:17.
18 over the course of a semester in three sections of a first-semester general

19
20
chemistry course (n = 170). We explored the connections that exist among these
21 three constructs as well as their connections to course performance. Multiple
22 regression and path analysis revealed that self-efficacy measured during week
23 12 was the strongest predictor of final course grade followed by situational
24 interest. We also report that personal interest is a significant predictor of future
25
self-efficacy. Our results add to the growing literature on psychological constructs
26
27 within chemistry education by identifying variables related to motivation that have
28 a significant connection to course performance among chemistry students. We
29 briefly address how these variables could be targeted in the classroom.
30
31 Introduction
32
33
34 Achievement motivation is a multi-faceted and complex nexus of
35 interconnected processes. In the context of education, the importance of
36 motivation and other affective processes cannot be overstated. Over the last 50
37 years in the field of psychology, much work has been dedicated to the
38
understanding of these processes in terms of what drives students’ choices and
39
40 persistence in education (Weiner, 1990). Many theories have been postulated
41 over the years and with them, specific psychological constructs have been
42 defined and operationalized in a myriad of studies. In chemistry education,
43 research has centered on attitudes (Barbera et al., 2008; Bauer, 2008; Chan and
44 Bauer, 2014, 2015; Galloway et al., 2016; Villafane and Lewis, 2016; Xu and
45
46
Lewis, 2011) and several motivational beliefs and processes including self-
47 efficacy (Dalgety, et al., 2003; Mataka and Kowalske, 2015; Smist, 1993;
48 Villafane et al., 2014; Zusho et al., 2003), interest (Dalgety and Coll, 2006;
49 Nieswandt, 2007; Uzuntiryaki and Aydin, 2009), self-regulation (Black and Deci,
50 2000), and self-concept (Bauer, 2005; Lewis et al., 2009; Nielsen and Yezierski,
51
2015).
52
53 To better understand academic motivation as a whole, constructs should
54 be measured and studied together with the intent of establishing connections
55 between them (Bathgate et al., 2014). In addition, knowledge of how they evolve
56 over time is valuable for instructors interested in improving the motivational
57 climate of their classrooms. In a prior study, we evaluated the psychometric
58
59
60
Chemistry Education Research and Practice Page 2 of 24
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
properties of four scales that measured self-efficacy, personal interest, situational
4
5 interest, and effort beliefs (Ferrell and Barbera, 2015). In the present study, we
6 extend upon our previous work by investigating the connections between these

7 constructs and how they predict course performance in a first-semester general
8 chemistry course.
9
10
11 Background
12
13 Connections among motivational constructs
14
15 Self-efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs represent three distinct
16
psychological constructs that can have an effect on motivation. In our previous
17
18 publication, we provide a detailed description and literature review on each

19 construct (Ferrell and Barbera, 2015). To date, no studies in secondary or post-
20 secondary education have been found that link all three constructs together,
21 either empirically, or theoretically. This is not surprising as effort beliefs research,
22 in particular, is relatively sparse in the literature. However, several empirical
23
24 studies have included two of the three constructs as measured variables.
25 Lent et al. (1994) applied social cognitive theory to career development by
26 formulating a model that included self-efficacy, academic interest, choice, and
27 performance. Central to their model was the notion that self-efficacy is a major
28 mediator of choice and development, and guides one’s decision-making. The
29
30
authors reviewed 13 relevant studies and found that of all the correlations with
31 self-efficacy, interest was the strongest (r = 0.53), and performance was
32 moderately correlated (r = 0.38). More recent studies have also corroborated
33 these findings (Larson et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2014; Lent et al., 2001; Lent et al.,
34 2008; Smith and Fouad, 1999). The temporal ordering of self-efficacy and
35 interest has proven more difficult to deconstruct. Lent et al. (2001), along with
36
37 others (Lent et al., 2008; Silvia, 2003), have found evidence that self-efficacy is a
38 causal precursor to career-related interest. Thus, students’ confidence in a
39 particular domain may lead to the development of interest. Others have
40 suggested that self-efficacy and interest are reciprocally related (Nauta et al.,
41 2002), meaning that self-efficacy leads to interest just as much as interest leads
42
43
to self-efficacy. Still others have produced viable models of interest and self-
44 efficacy that are temporally equivalent with both being caused by variables not
45 included in the model (Lee et al., 2014). In any case, these studies highlight the
46 salience of considering interest and self-efficacy in achievement motivation
47 models, as well as career and college major choice models.
48
The empirical research on effort beliefs remains sparse, and as a result,
49
50 there is little evidence that addresses connections with other motivational
51 constructs. Nevertheless, a few studies do exist that have measured self-efficacy
52 or interest in combination with effort beliefs (Abdullah, 2008; Jones et al., 2012).
53 Abdullah (2008) found a strong, positive correlation (r = 0.51) between positive
54 effort beliefs and self-efficacy with a sample of students. This is consistent with
55
56
Bandura’s (1997) prevailing theoretical model, which suggests people with high
57 self-efficacy tend to display more effort and persist longer with tasks than those
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
with low self-efficacy. Although a display of effort is not equivalent to believing
4
5 that effort will lead to positive outcomes, we argue that positive effort beliefs
6 toward a task likely precede the exertion of effort. The relationship between

7 interest and effort beliefs was investigated in one study on ninth grade math
8 students (Jones et al., 2012). Although the path models tested in the study
9 included no significant causal relationship between interest and effort beliefs,
10
11 data was presented demonstrating a moderate, positive correlation between
12 effort beliefs and interest as well as a significant covariance among the residual
13 terms.
14
15 Academic achievement and self-efficacy
16
17
18 Self-efficacy is the most widely studied of these constructs in terms of the

19 link with academic achievement. Self-efficacy has been shown to consistently
20 display a positive relationship with academic performance (Lightsey, 1999;
21 Multon et al., 1991; Robbins et al., 2004). Regardless of ability level, researchers
22 have found that students who report high self-efficacy tend to outperform their
23
24 peers who report low self-efficacy (Bouffard-Bouchard et al., 1991; Collins, 1982
25 as cited in Bandura, 1997). Students at the college level are no exception. The
26 positive correlation between self-efficacy and academic performance has been
27 observed repeatedly in college courses (Lent et al., 1986; Pajares and Kranzler,
28 1995; Pajares and Miller, 1994, 1995; Siegel et al., 1985; Zusho et al., 2003).
29
30
Multon et al. (1991) conducted a meta-analysis on studies that measured college
31 students’ self-efficacy. They reported an average correlation of 0.38 between
32 self-efficacy and academic performance, and that self-efficacy accounted for
33 14% and 12% of the observed variance in academic performance and
34 persistence, respectively. A subsequent meta-analysis conducted by Robbins et
35 al. (2004) surveyed 109 studies where various psychosocial and study skills
36
37 variables were compared with academic performance. The two strongest
38 psychosocial predictors of college GPA were self-efficacy and achievement
39 motivation (ρs = 0.496 and 0.303, respectively). Furthermore, due to the non-
40 compulsory nature of college, many studies investigating self-efficacy among
41 college-age students have examined the predictive power of self-efficacy on
42
43
persistence (Hull-Blanks et al., 2005; Lent et al., 1984; Vuong et al., 2010).
44 Wright et al. (2012) sampled 401 first-year undergraduates and found that course
45 self-efficacy measured at the end of the semester was a significant predictor of
46 persistence to enroll in the second semester. This effect was found after
47 controlling for relevant variables such as gender, high school GPA, and ethnicity.
48
49
50 Academic achievement and interest
51
52 Although there has been less research linking interest to academic
53 achievement, a few notable studies should be mentioned. It is important to
54 highlight that interest can be conceptualized as having both trait (personal
55
56
interest) and state (situational interest) aspects (Hidi and Renninger, 2006;
57 Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2013). The following studies tested the connection
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
between situational interest and course performance. Harackiewicz et al. (2000)
4
5 investigated the short and long-term effects of college students’ goal orientations,
6 interest, and performance in an introductory psychology class. The authors

7 utilized path modeling to test the causal ordering of the tested variables. Their
8 results showed that in the short-term (one semester), students who reported
9 higher situational interest received higher grades in the course. Although this
10
11 effect was significant, the authors point out that students had already received
12 feedback from two exams prior to the measurement of their interest. Hence, the
13 notion that level of interest accounted for the performance level could be
14 muddled by the timing of the measurements. In a related study, Hulleman and
15 colleagues (2008) found that the utility value component of interest (i.e.,
16
importance for future), but not the intrinsic component (i.e., enjoyment of class),
17
18 significantly predicted academic performance in college psychology. In this study,

19 interest was measured prior to any exams, eliminating the problem of timing for
20 causal ordering.
21
22 Academic achievement and effort beliefs
23
24
25 Very little research has been published with effort beliefs as a measured
26 variable. Among those studies, no direct link between effort beliefs and academic
27 performance has been established. Instead, Blackwell et al. (2007), in a study on
28 sixth and seventh graders, identified positive effort beliefs as an important
29
30
mediator between incremental theory of intelligence (Dweck, 2012) and positive
31 learning strategies, which predicted grades. In a subsequent study, Jones et al.
32 (2012) sought to replicate the model proposed by Blackwell et al. (2007) with
33 ninth grade math students. They also found that positive effort beliefs mediated
34 the relationship between an incremental theory of intelligence and positive
35 learning strategies, which were predictive of current grades. Although limited in
36
37 scope, the findings of these studies expand upon the importance of considering
38 effort beliefs as a mediator between implicit theories and adaptive learning
39 patterns that lead to higher achievement (Tempelaar et al., 2015).
40
41 Factors linked to achievement in chemistry
42
43
44 Prior studies in chemistry have demonstrated that cognitive variables such
45 as spatial skills (Carter et al., 1987), math ability (Lewis and Lewis, 2007;
46 Spencer, 1996), and prior conceptual knowledge (Xu, Villafane, and Lewis, 2013)
47 are linked to achievement. For example, Lewis and Lewis (2007) were interested
48
in predicting at-risk students in general chemistry. They found that a significant
49
50 amount of the variance in students’ American Chemical Society (ACS) final exam
51 scores was accounted for by their SAT math scores. This suggests that students’
52 math ability plays an important role in their success in general chemistry. In a
53 related study, House (1995) identified that students’ beliefs about their math
54 ability was the strongest predictor of achievement in a college introductory
55
56
chemistry course, even when the American College Testing (ACT) composite
57 exam scores were considered. While cognitive abilities are an integral part of
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
academic performance in chemistry, one cannot ignore the underlying non-
4
5 cognitive beliefs and processes. Several non-cognitive factors such as self-
6 efficacy (Zusho et al., 2003), attitude (Xu et al., 2013), self-concept (Lewis et al.,

7 2009), and utility value (Gonzalez and Paoloni, 2015b) have been correlated with
8 achievement in chemistry courses. For example, Zusho et al. (2003), in a study
9 with college chemistry students, found that self-efficacy accounted for the most
10
11 variance in course performance, even after controlling for prior achievement.
12 These studies underscore the fact that non-cognitive beliefs and processes are
13 vital to student success in chemistry.
14
15 Present Study
16
17
18 Our aim in this study was to explore the possible relationships that exist
19 between self-efficacy, effort beliefs, personal interest, and situational interest as
20 well as their connection to final grades in an introductory chemistry course.
21 Toward this end, we used multiple regression and path analysis to test for
22 plausible models that best represent these relationships. Previously, we adapted
23
24 and modified four scales intended to measure these motivation-related variables
25 in a chemistry setting (Ferrell and Barbera, 2015). We demonstrated that all four
26 scales produced sufficient evidence for validity and reliability with both initial and
27 cross-validation samples of first-semester general chemistry students, a
28 necessary precursor to any further studies (Arjoon et al., 2013; Barbera and
29
30
VandenPlas, 2011; Brandriet et al., 2013). Our data collection and subsequent
31 analyses for the present study were guided by the following two research
32 questions:
33 (1) What are the connections among self-efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs
34 with general chemistry students?
35 (2) To what extent do self-efficacy, interest, and/or effort beliefs predict
36
37 course performance in general chemistry?
38 We hypothesized that self-efficacy would be the best predictor of course
39 performance in line with what others have reported (Bong, 2001; Pajares and
40 Miller, 1995). In addition, we hypothesized that personal interest would predict
41 situational interest, a relationship that has been theoretically established and
42
43
tested in several studies (Harackiewicz et al., 2008; Hidi and Renninger, 2006;
44 Nieswandt, 2007), and these would be related to course performance. Based on
45 the lack of research on effort beliefs in college settings, we did not have specific
46 hypotheses regarding these factors. We believe the results from this study will
47 provide valuable insight for instructors interested in measuring the motivational
48
climate of their classrooms as well as those who want to expand the evidence of
49
50 impacts related to curriculum changes.
51
52 Methods
53 Participants
54 Participants for this study were recruited from three sections of a first-semester
55
56
general chemistry course at a mid-sized Rocky Mountain region university during
57
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
the fall of 2014. This is a required course for several science and health-related
4
5 majors, and is the first in a two-semester sequence of general chemistry.
6

7 Course overview
8 Two different instructors taught the three different class sections of first-semester
9 general chemistry during this term. Instructor A taught two sections and instructor
10
11 B taught one section. These instructors were not only selected based on their
12 willingness to participate in the study, but also on their backgrounds and
13 similarities in course structure and teaching style. Each instructor had over five
14 years experience teaching within the general chemistry sequence and had been
15 recognized for their excellence in teaching the course. The instructors worked
16
together, meeting regularly over the semester, to coordinate on a number of
17
18 aspects for the courses. In addition to using the same textbook and homework
19 system, the instructors agreed on the timing of assessments and weight
20 percentages of assignments. Each course had an equal number of online
21 homework assignments, weekly quizzes, and hour exams. While the content
22 coverage of each was similar, based on the pacing of each instructor, they did
23
24 not use matched homework or assessment items for security reasons. Both
25 instructors administered an American Chemical Society examination for their final
26 exam. Lecture was the main teaching style for all courses. While both instructors
27 supplemented lectures with brief activities, problem solving tasks, and virtual or
28 physical demonstrations, neither would categorize their style as active learning.
29
30
31 Measures
32 Interest Scales. To assess interest at two time points during the semester,
33 personal and situational interest scales were needed. Both scales were originally
34 developed by Harackiewicz et al. (2008) and very similar items were used in a
35 subsequent study by Linnenbrink et al. (2010). We adapted the items from both
36
37 scales for use in college-level chemistry and found the psychometric properties
38 of each to be acceptable (Ferrell and Barbera, 2015). The personal interest scale
39 is comprised of seven items, three of which are feeling-related items, and the
40 remaining four are value-related. The situational interest scale is comprised of
41 eight items, with an equal split of feeling-related and value-related items. The
42
43
personal interest scale is designed to measure the interest that students already
44 have towards chemistry prior to taking the course. The situational interest scale,
45 on the other hand, is comprised of items that assess interest aimed at students’
46 feelings and value toward the material covered at the course level (Linnenbrink-
47 Garcia et al., 2013). Both scales are measured using a five-point Likert scale
48
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
49
50
51 Self-efficacy. To measure self-efficacy, select items from the College Chemistry
52 Self-Efficacy Scale were used (CCSS; Uzuntiryaki and Aydin, 2009), all of which
53 were previously tested for adequate psychometric properties. We originally
54 tested a scale that consisted of eight items, two of which were removed due to
55
56
poor model fit (Ferrell and Barbera, 2015). The scale used in the present study
57 consists of six items that ask students to rate how well they could complete tasks
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
that would generally be encountered in an introductory chemistry course. The
4
5 items are measured on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “very poorly” to
6 “very well”.

7
8 Effort Beliefs. To measure students’ effort beliefs about chemistry, we adapted
9 a scale for chemistry originally developed by Sorich and Dweck (1997),
10
11 subsequently published in Blackwell’s (2002) dissertation, and used in studies by
12 Blackwell et al. (2007) and Jones et al. (2012). The original scale consisted of
13 nine items, however, our previous study produced evidence suggesting that the
14 scale functioned better if three of the items were removed (Ferrell and Barbera,
15 2015). Hence, in the present study, we used the six-item scale measured with a
16
five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
17
18
19 Academic Performance. Although there are many ways to measure academic
20 performance in a college classroom, course grade is the most common. We
21 chose to use course grade percentage because it represents the final outcome of
22 the course and is the highest stake for students. Final course grade percentages
23
24 were based on content measures only including homework, quizzes, mid-term
25 exams, and the ACS final exam. No points were awarded for participation or
26 attendance, and the co-requisite lab was a separate grade entirely. Students with
27 incomplete grades were not included in the analyses.
28
29
30
Data Collection
31 Data for this study were collected at two time points during the lecture period of
32 each section. Time 1 (T1) data were collected during the first week of the
33 semester and time 2 (T2) data were collected during the 12th week of the
34 semester. On the days when data were collected, the researcher made an
35 announcement informing students that their participation was voluntary and that
36
37 their identities would be kept completely confidential. The students were then
38 provided the survey packet along with a consent form that was approved by the
39 Institutional Review Board. Students were given approximately 10 minutes to
40 complete all of the scales (19 items at time 1 and 20 items at time 2) and seven
41 demographic items (only given at time 1). Due to the nature of this study, only
42
43
students who completed all items at both time points were included in
44 subsequent analyses.
45
46 Data Analysis
47
48
Descriptives. Descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, skew
49
50 and kurtosis values were determined for all scales at both time points. We
51 considered acceptable skew and kurtosis values to be -1 to +1 (Huck, 2012).
52 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 20.0 software was used for
53 these analyses.
54
55
56
Multiple Regression. Multiple regression analysis is a method used to predict or
57 explain the variation in a dependent variable by examining its relations to several
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
independent variables (Pedhazur, 1997). By utilizing multiple regression
4
5 analyses, the researcher is able to identify and separate the individual effects of
6 distinct independent variables on a dependent variable. Multiple regression

7 analysis was employed in this study to examine to what extent self-efficacy,
8 interest, and effort beliefs predict final grades. All necessary assumptions were
9 examined including univariate normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and normal
10
11 distribution of residuals. In addition, multicollinearity was checked among all of
12 the independent variables.
13
14 Path Analysis. Path analysis is similar to multiple regression, but allows the
15 researcher to estimate the effects of independent variables on each other as well
16
as on the dependent variable and the causal directions associated with these
17
18 effects (Pedhazur, 1997). A related technique, structural equation modeling is

19 often used to specify a full model with latent and observed variables along with a
20 path diagram representing the interconnections between the variables (Gonzalez
21 and Paoloni, 2015b; Xu et al., 2013). However, path analysis has no latent
22 variables and generates a path diagram with path coefficients based solely on
23
24 observed variables with only one indicator (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000). The
25 observed variables that only have outgoing paths are referred to as exogenous
26 variables, with the variance in these being explained by factors not included in
27 the model. In addition, they are assumed to be measured without error. Although
28 measurement error cannot ever be fully eliminated, the measures used here
29
30
have been well supported with evidence of validity and reliability (Ferrell and
31 Barbera, 2015). The paths which have at least one incoming path are referred to
32 as endogenous variables. The variance of endogenous variables is assumed to
33 be explained by only the other variables included in the model, plus a
34 disturbance term, which is analogous to an error term (Streiner, 2005). One of
35 the advantages of using path analysis versus multiple regression is the ability to
36
37 test how well competing models fit a given data set. To do this, each model is
38 examined for overall fit. There are a myriad of fit indices that researchers use to
39 support the fit of a model, but we will use only the most common for path
40 analysis. Global model fit was tested using the 𝜒 ! test for goodness-of-fit, in
41 which the desired result is to retain the null hypothesis (Streiner, 2006). While
42
43
this is a good indicator of how well a model fits the data, it can be influenced by
44 large sample sizes, which often leads the researcher to reject the null hypothesis
45 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Thus, other fit indices, which are less
46 influenced by the size of the sample, are often used to further evaluate model fit.
47 We chose to use three of these, Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation
48
(RMSEA) (Steiger, 1990), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), and the Comparative Fit
49
50 Index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990). We describe the CFI and RMSEA in detail in a
51 separate publication (Ferrell and Barbera, 2015). Briefly, the acceptable values
52 for RMSEA and CFI are < 0.08 and > 0.95, respectively (Browne and Cudeck,
53 1992; Hu and Bentler, 1999). The GFI is an absolute fit index that compares the
54 amount of variance and covariance explained by the hypothesized model to no
55
56
model at all (Byrne, 2013). GFI values > 0.85 are considered indicative of
57 acceptable fit, but > 0.90 indicates good fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). To
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
generate our path diagrams, a set of a priori path models were tested using
4
5 LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2006) with the Maximum Likelihood (ML)
6 estimator.

7
8 Results
9 Demographics. During the first week of classes, 299 participants (91% of
10
11 enrolled students) turned in survey packets. Of these, 170 had complete data
12 sets at the end of the semester, resulting in approximately 43% attrition from the
13 study. The reasons for this attrition were missing data due to absences,
14 withdrawal from the course, or lack of consent. Participants completed a
15 demographic survey only at T1. Of the 170 participants included in the study,
16
73.5% were female, and 92.9% had taken high school chemistry. Most of the
17
18 students (79.3%) were at the freshman or sophomore level and 81.7% reported
19 this class as being their first chemistry class in college. With regard to
20 race/ethnicity, 73.5% were Caucasian, 17.1% were Hispanic, 4.1% were African
21 American, 1.2% were Asian American, and 4.1% were self-identified as Other.
22 The breakdown of majors was as follows: 14% chemistry, 23% other science
23
24 (biology, physics, mathematics), and 63% were non-science (nursing, sports and
25 exercise science, other).
26
27 Data Screening and Descriptive Statistics. All data sets were screened for
28 careless responses (e.g., selection of the same option for every item) and none
29
30
were found. Descriptive statistics and internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s
31 alpha) for the students’ scores are reported in Table 1. A final combined sample
32 size of 170 was analyzed from all three sections of the course. The skew and
33 kurtosis values were within the range of -1 to +1, with the exception of the value-
34 related personal interest scale. As a result, the inferences drawn from the scores
35 from this scale should be interpreted with caution as multiple regression and
36
37 maximum likelihood estimation are not robust to univariate nonnormality (Curran
38 et al., 1996; Osborne and Waters, 2002). The internal consistency analysis for
39 each scale reveals that Cronbach’s alpha (α) values are acceptable (> 0.70), with
40 the exception of the effort beliefs scores at T1 (α = 0.68). This borderline internal
41 consistency value was taken into consideration when interpreting the results
42
43
below. The descriptive statistics reported here are comparable to those reported
44 in our previous study using these scales, suggesting consistency in the
45 measurement (Ferrell and Barbera, 2015).
46
47 Table 1. Descriptive statistics for each measured scale (n = 170)
48
49 Scale (Time) Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s α
50 PI – feel (T1) 3.25 0.90 -0.30 -0.20 0.92
51
52 PI – value (T1) 3.87 1.00 -1.61 2.68 0.89
53 EB (T1) 4.06 0.52 -0.26 -0.54 0.68
54
SE (T1) 2.90 0.71 -0.28 0.19 0.88
55
56 SI – feel (T2) 3.25 0.97 -0.39 -0.30 0.94
57 SI – value (T2) 3.51 0.84 -0.36 -0.03 0.86
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
EB (T2) 3.94 0.68 -0.75 0.43 0.83
4
5 SE (T2) 3.72 0.60 -0.50 0.36 0.85
6
Final % 75.81 12.68 0.25 -0.54 --

7
8 Note: PI – Personal interest, EB – Effort beliefs, SE – Self-efficacy, SI – Situational interest
9
10 Multiple Regression. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine
11 the effects of personal interest, situational interest, effort beliefs, and self-efficacy
12 on final course grade. Correlations between all mean scale scores and final
13
14 course grade are reported in Table 2. Tests for the assumptions of
15 homoscedasticity, linearity, and normal distribution of residuals were conducted
16 and met. The level of multicollinearity was checked and found to be acceptable
17 based on low variance inflation factors (VIFs) (Pedhazur, 1997).
18
19
20
Table 2. Pearson correlations of all scales and final course grade
21 Scale PI-feel PI-value EB T1 SE T1 SI-feel SI-value EB T2 SE T2 Fpct
22 PI-feel -
23 PI-value 0.668* -
24 EB T1 0.409* 0.589* -
25
SE T1 0.319* 0.184* 0.059 -
26
27 SI-feel 0.503* 0.197* 0.214* 0.243* -
28 SI-value 0.361* 0.188* 0.185* 0.195* 0.662* -
29 EB T2 0.177* 0.111 0.423* 0.075 0.568* 0.486* -
30
SE T2 0.322* 0.218* 0.298* 0.400* 0.541* 0.474* 0.495* -
31
32 Fpct 0.151* 0.120 0.102 0.228* 0.392* 0.231* 0.312* 0.536* -
33 Note: PI – Personal interest, EB – Effort beliefs, SE – Self-efficacy, SI – Situational interest, Fpct – Final course
percent
34
*Significant at p < 0.05.
35
36
37 Final course grade was regressed on self-efficacy, effort beliefs, and both
38 feeling and value-related components for interest (personal for T1 and situational
39 for T2) at both time points. We used a hierarchical regression method to test the
40 incremental effects of T2 variables over the T1 variables in the model. The first
41
model was significant (F(4,165) = 2.741, p = 0.030, R2 = 0.062, R2 adjusted =
42
43 0.040) with only one significant main effect, self-efficacy T1 (β = 0.205, p =
44 0.011). The second model was significant as well (F(8,161) = 10.074, p < 0.001,
45 R2 = 0.334, R2 adjusted = 0.300, R2 change = 0.271, p < 0.001). Only situational
46 interest feel (β = 0.277, p = 0.011) and self-efficacy T2 (β = 0.477, p < 0.001)
47 were significant main effects in the second model. None of the T1 variables
48
49
accounted for a significant amount of variance in final course grade when the T2
50 variables were introduced into the model. This data suggests that variables
51 measured later in the semester account for significantly more variance in final
52 course grade than T1 variables, even after the variance from T1 variables were
53 accounted for.
54
55
56 Path Analyses. Path analysis was used to test a set of path models, which
57 describe a network of relationships simultaneously. Path analysis extends
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
beyond multiple regression by allowing for relationships among predictor
4
5 variables to be tested as well as allowing for defined constraints on the model. As
6 with the multiple regression, all models were tested with the entire data set (n =

7 170).
8 To generate the most parsimonious model, the first set of relationships
9 tested in model 1, effort beliefs and value-related interest components were
10
11 excluded (see Fig. 1). These variables were left out of the path analysis for two
12 reasons. First, they were not shown to be significant predictors of course grade in
13 the multiple regression analysis. Secondly, we had no theoretical basis for
14 assigning a causal path between effort beliefs or the value-related interest
15 components and any of the other constructs tested. Thus, only self-efficacy,
16
feeling-related personal and situational interest, and course grade were included
17
18 in model 1.
19 The results showed that model 1 was not a good fit to the data. Only the
20 GFI (0.91) was within an acceptable range (see Table 3). The R2 value for model
21 1 indicates that 25% of the variance in course grade can be explained by the way
22 students responded to the scales as outlined by the model.
23
24
25 Table 3. Fit statistics for each model tested, bold indicates value within
26 acceptable range for the type of statistic
27 Model 𝜒 ! (df) p-value RMSEA CFI GFI R
2*
28
29 1 44.25 (5) < 0.001 0.22 0.81 0.91 0.25
30 2 13.58 (4) < 0.01 0.12 0.96 0.97 0.28
31
3 10.46 (3) 0.02 0.12 0.97 0.98 0.29
32
33 4 3.59 (3) 0.31 0.03 0.99 0.99 0.30
34 *R reported as variance accounted for in final grade.
2
35
36
37 To explore the possibility of model misspecification, we examined the
38 modification indices (MIs). Modification indices are equivalent to a one degree of
39 freedom 𝜒 ! statistic that can only be applied to parameters which are fixed. The
40 MIs provide an estimate of how much the overall 𝜒 ! statistic will drop when the
41
parameter in question is freely estimated (Byrne, 2013). The MIs for model 1
42
43 indicated that correlating the disturbance terms of self-efficacy T2 and situational
44 interest feel would improve the overall fit of the model. Disturbance terms are
45 analogous to error terms in multiple regression and structural equation modeling.
46 They are estimates of the variance not accounted for by the incoming path or
47 paths to a given term. By allowing the correlations of the disturbance terms to be
48
49
freely estimated, we utilized a method known as correlated uniqueness (CU)
50 (Kenny, 1979). Although somewhat contentious in the literature, CU allows the
51 researcher to account for common method variance that can be particularly
52 problematic when using the same survey and scale type to measure multiple
53 variables (Marsh and Bailey, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 2003). When we re-specified
54
the model to include this change (model 2, Fig. 1), the fit improved dramatically
55
56 over model 1 (see Table 3). Nevertheless, the 𝜒 ! goodness-of-fit test was still
57 significant and the RMSEA value was not within an acceptable range.
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
4
5 0.32*# 0.32*#
6

7
8 Personal# Self.Efficacy# Personal# Self.Efficacy#
9 Interest#Feel# T1# Interest#Feel# T1#
10
11 0.50*# 0.40*# 0.43*# 0.35*#
12
13 Situa<onal# Self.Efficacy# Situa<onal# Self.Efficacy#
15
16
17 0.75# 0.84# 0.82# 0.88#
18 d1# d2# d1# d2#

19
20
21 0.39*#
22
23
24 0.15*# 0.14#
0.47*# 0.45*#
25
26
Final#Grade# Final#Grade#
27
28
29 0.75# 0.72#
30
31 d3# d3#
32
33 Model 1 Model 2
34 Figure 1. Path diagram of models 1 and 2. Standardized path coefficients are
35
36
reported. *Significant at p < 0.05
37
38 In addition to the links between pre/post scores of the same construct, we
39 were interested in testing the predictive relationships between self-efficacy and
40 interest. Toward this end, we tested competing models – the first of which had
41 personal interest feel predicting self-efficacy T2 (model 4, Fig. 2) and the second
42
43 had self-efficacy T1 predicting situational interest feel (model 3, Fig. 2). Models 3
44 and 4 are identical to model 2 (Fig. 1) with the exception of their respective
45 added paths between interest and self-efficacy. Both of these relationships are
46 supported by the literature, in addition to a reciprocal relationship between self-
47 efficacy and interest, as explained above. However, in the context of chemistry,
48
49
we are unaware of any evidence that supports either hypothesis, therefore, both
50 paths need to be tested.
51 A path from self-efficacy T1 to situational interest feel was added in model
52 3 (Fig. 2). There was a modest improvement in model fit over model 2 (see Table
53 3), but the path coefficient (β = 0.13) between self-efficacy T1 and situational
54 interest feel was not significant at p < 0.05. This suggests that, on average, self-
55
56 efficacy scores at the start of the semester do not predict future levels of feeling-
57
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
related situational interest in chemistry. All other significant paths from model 2
4
5 were similar in direction and magnitude in model 3.
6 When a path was added from personal interest feel to self-efficacy T2 in

7 model 4 (Fig. 2), there was a dramatic improvement in fit over model 3 (see
8 Table 3), but unlike in model 3, the path coefficient (β = 0.23) between personal
9 interest feel and self-efficacy T2 was significant (p < 0.05). This finding provides
10
11 evidence that, on average, interest in chemistry at the start of a course is an
12 important factor in predicting students’ self-efficacy at the end of the course. The
13 indirect effects of self-efficacy T1 and personal interest feel on course grade
14 were also tested in model 4, but were not found to be significant (p < 0.05).
15
16
17
18
19 0.32*# 0.32*#
20
21
22 Personal# Self.Efficacy# Personal# Self.Efficacy#
24
25 0.39*# 0.13# 0.40*# 0.50*# 0.23*# 0.29*#
26
27 Situa<onal# Self.Efficacy# Situa<onal# Self.Efficacy#
29
30
31 0.80# 0.84# 0.75# 0.82#
32
d1# d2# d1# d2#
33
34
35 0.36*#
0.38*#
36
37
38
39 0.14# 0.46*# 0.15# 0.45*#
40
41 Final#Grade# Final#Grade#
42
43 0.71# 0.70#
44
45 d3# d3#
46
47 Model 3 Model 4
48
49
Figure 3. Path diagram of models 3 and 4. Standardized path coefficients are
50 reported. *Significant at p < 0.05
51
52 Discussion
53 In this study, we explored the connections between self-efficacy, personal
54 interest, situational interest, and effort beliefs as well as their impact on course
55
56 grade in a first-semester general chemistry course. Participants were evaluated
57 on these measures at two time points (week 1 and week 12). This work builds on
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
our prior study (Ferrell and Barbera, 2015) by investigating the temporal links and
4
5 interconnections, via path analysis, that exist between these motivational
6 variables. In addition, we analyzed the extent to which students’ grades were

7 predicted by the path models tested. In our best-fitting model (model 4, Fig. 2),
8 we found that T1 variables were good predictors of their T2 counterparts and that
9 the feeling-related component of personal interest was a good predictor of self-
10
11 efficacy T2. It is important to note here that self-efficacy T2 is a strong predictor
12 of course grade (β=0.45) and the correlation between personal interest feel and
13 course grade is significant (r = 0.15). Hence, there could be a mediating effect of
14 self-efficacy T2 on the relationship between personal interest feel and course
15 grade. Additionally, 30% of the total variance in course grade was accounted for
16
by the variables included in model 4. By squaring the path coefficient (β=0.45),
17
18 we see that the strongest predictor of course grade was self-efficacy at T2 that
19 accounts for 20.3% of the total variance explained in the model.
20
21 Multiple Regression Analysis. To begin, we regressed final course grade on all
22 measured variables at both time points. Based on prior research, we expected
23
24 self-efficacy and interest to be potential predictors of course grade (Gore, 2006;
25 Harackiewicz et al., 2000; Smist, 1993; Zusho et al., 2003). Our results are
26 concurrent with this, suggesting that self-efficacy, measured at the end of the
27 semester, is the strongest predictor of course grade. Feeling-related situational
28 interest also accounts for a significant portion of the variance in course grade in
29
30
some of our models. These results were obtained even when personal interest
31 feel and T1 self-efficacy were accounted for in a hierarchical regression model.
32 Effort beliefs at either time point was found to not be a significant predictor of
33 course grade in our regression model. This is in line with what has been
34 previously reported (Blackwell et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2012). However, effort
35 beliefs T2 did exhibit strong correlations with all other T2 variables (see Table 2),
36
37 demonstrating a clear relationship with distinct, motivation-related constructs. To
38 further understand effort beliefs as a psychological construct, we are conducting
39 a qualitative investigation among general chemistry students that will be reported
40 at a later date.
41 It is important to note here that the timing of measurement should be a
42
43
central consideration when assessing students’ motivation. At the start of the
44 semester, self-efficacy T1 was a very weak predictor of final course grade and
45 personal interest was not a significant predictor. By the end of the semester, self-
46 efficacy T2 and situational interest feel accounted for a much larger portion of the
47 variance than the T1 variables. The predictive effect of self-efficacy measured in
48
the middle of the semester, versus the beginning, on performance has been
49
50 observed consistently by others (Bong, 2001; Gore, 2006; Lee et al., 2014). We
51 postulate this could be due to two reasons. First, students are not well calibrated
52 in their confidence when they walk in the door on the first day of chemistry.
53 Hence, they may under or over-estimate their capability to complete certain tasks
54 they will encounter in the course. Others have reported evidence of high school
55
56
students’ overconfidence in math, but suggested that college students would
57 likely have better calibration (Pajares and Kranzler, 1995). Although most of the
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
students in this study had chemistry in high school, some did not, which would
4
5 further complicate the issue of calibration because of the lack of knowledge, skill,
6 and prior attainments (Gist and Mitchell, 1992; Pajares, 1996). By the end of the

7 semester, students had more recent experience with the tasks included in the
8 self-efficacy scale and were better able to self-appraise their abilities (Wright et
9 al., 2012). Bandura (1986) also notes that self-appraisals of ability should
10
11 improve with time. Secondly, students, by the end of the semester, had
12 considerably more performance feedback to draw upon and with which to match
13 their appraisals. Thus, it is likely that their confidence would better line up with
14 their actual performance thereby improving the correlation between self-efficacy
15 and final course grade. To begin accounting for this, we suggest that future
16
classroom studies consider collecting a set of data after students have had some
17
18 graded performance feedback. This can then be compared to data collected at

19 the end of a course to get a better gauge of the impacts of the classroom
20 environment. Additionally, we encourage future qualitative studies of the reported
21 reasons for students’ change on these variables and which aspects of the
22 environment (if any) are reflected on as the nature of the change.
23
24
25 Path Analysis. We were not only interested in total variance explained, but also
26 the predictive power of the independent variables in our model. Our first model
27 (Fig. 1) included self-efficacy and situational interest feel as endogenous T2
28 variables predicting final course grade. The T2 variables were preceded by their
29
30
respective T1 variables (personal interest feel and self-efficacy). Value-related
31 interest and effort beliefs were removed from the initial model (model 1) because
32 neither variable was a significant predictor of course grade in the multiple
33 regression analysis. Model 1 demonstrated poor fit to the data, but when we
34 allowed the disturbance terms of situational interest feel and self-efficacy T2 to
35 be freely estimated, the model fit improved (model 2). Correlated disturbances
36
37 (or residuals) represent shared variance between two variables included in a
38 model and some cause outside the model (Landis et al., 2009). Often
39 modification indices will be generated that estimate improved model fit should
40 certain residuals be allowed to correlate. It should be noted, however, that
41 modification indices are not a substitute for substantive theoretical backing.
42
43
Rather, they can be viewed as suggestions that should be interpreted in light of
44 prior research and accepted theory. Despite this adjustment, the model was still
45 a poor fit to the data. It was only when we explored the connection between self-
46 efficacy and interest that the model fit improved significantly.
47 Feeling-related aspects of personal interest were determined to be a
48
significant predictor of self-efficacy at T2. We noted above the mixed results
49
50 obtained from others (Lent et al., 2008; Nauta et al., 2002) on the causal link
51 between self-efficacy and interest. We tested both causal directions – the first,
52 self-efficacy predicting situational interest feel, the second, personal interest feel
53 predicting T2 self-efficacy. Our results revealed that personal interest was a
54 better predictor of future self-efficacy than self-efficacy predicting future interest.
55
56
Put simply, students who come into chemistry with a fascination or positive
57 feelings toward chemistry will tend to leave the course with more confidence than
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
those who do not. However, as Nauta et al. (2002) found, the directionality could
4
5 change with subsequent measurements of interest and self-efficacy. Thus, we do
6 not suggest our results are in conflict with what has been reported previously, but

7 rather a snapshot of what is certainly a larger motivational landscape.
8
9 Implications for Research and Instruction
10
11 There are several implications of this study with respect to chemical
12 education research and instruction. While this study did not include designed
13 attempts to positively impact the measured variables, our study highlights the
14 salience of considering affective and motivational processes in the classroom as
15 influencing factors of course performance. An instructor cannot control what
16
beliefs students’ hold when they enter the classroom, but our results suggest that
17
18 instructors could target interest and self-efficacy in their teaching strategies,

19 which could impact course performance. Bandura (1986) argues that of the
20 sources of self-efficacy, authentic mastery experiences are the most important.
21 Obviously, all instructors hope their students achieve these experiences, but
22 perhaps designing a curriculum or series of interventions around this idea would
23
24 promote students’ confidence, leading them to more adaptive motivational
25 processes and ultimately, to success (Bandura, 1997; Zusho et al., 2003).
26 Self-efficacy is not the only target variable our model suggests addressing
27 for enhanced course performance. While individual interest is not usually
28 associated with performance in education, some of our results suggest that
29
30
students with higher levels of feeling-related situational interest by the end of the
31 semester performed better than those with lower levels of interest. Several
32 interventions and teaching styles have been developed with the aim of impacting
33 students’ interest (Häussler and Hoffmann, 2002; Hulleman et al., 2010;
34 Hulleman and Harackiewicz, 2009). Hulleman et al. (2010) incorporated a brief
35 intervention in a college psychology class whereby students in the treatment
36
37 group were asked to write a short essay about the relevance of a topic being
38 covered to a significant person in their lives. This short assignment resulted in a
39 significant effect, both on increased interest in the course and on their final
40 grades. Furthermore, the effect was most pronounced for students with low
41 expectancies for success in the course, who are likely most at-risk for failure.
42
43
Social-psychological interventions such as these should not be written off as
44 hand waving or magical. There are substantial effects that have been observed
45 for very simple, but carefully planned interventions. Yeager and Walton (2011)
46 have this to say about social-psychological interventions,
47
48
“brief exercises that do not teach academic content but instead target
49
50 students’ thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in and about school - have had
51 striking effects on educational achievement over months and years.”
52
53 Limitations of Study
54 Our study has several limitations that should be made known. First, our
55
56
sample was derived from one institution during one semester and did not include
57 all sections of the course during that semester. Also, of the original sample, little
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
more than half of the participants provided all of the necessary criteria for
4
5 inclusion in the final analyses. Finally, those who were included were primarily
6 female and Caucasian. Thus, the generalizability of our results to other

7 populations of general chemistry students is limited. We encourage other
8 researchers to test our model and other competing models with more diverse
9 student populations.
10
11 Second, we recognize that our models are imperfect and that all models
12 are mis-specified to some degree (MacCallum, 2003). Although an assumption of
13 path analysis and multiple regression is that the independent variables are
14 measured without error, this can never be fully achieved. As noted earlier, our
15 previous study (Ferrell and Barbera, 2015) supports the quality of the measures
16
in terms of validity and reliability. We thoroughly investigated the psychometric
17
18 properties of each scale used in the present study, a critical first step to any
19 substantive investigation using self-report data. By having measures that have
20 been properly designed and target the variables appropriately is critical to
21 reducing the effects of systematic measurement error. Despite our efforts, one
22 reliability estimate is borderline (EB (T1), α = 0.68), therefore the statistical power
23
24 and parameter estimates in our model may be incorrectly estimated to a certain
25 degree (Cole and Preacher, 2014). Furthermore, we acknowledge that without a
26 full structural model, we cannot account for the measurement error of individual
27 items. Path analysis was used instead due to our relatively small sample size (n
28 = 173). While many others have used path analysis in a similar manner as we
29
30
have (Bong, 2001; Jones et al., 2012; Lent et al., 2008), full structural models are
31 superior for testing and generating theory. The models reported here are merely
32 an estimation of parameters and do not necessarily accurately describe the
33 motivational phenomena at play. Therefore, we encourage others to cross-
34 validate our models using a different sample to ensure that the pattern of
35 relationships observed here is not a capitalization on chance (Hermida, 2015).
36
37 We encourage others to examine additional longitudinal sets of
38 relationships among grades, self-efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs as well as
39 other affective processes such as student engagement. It is possible that effort
40 beliefs or self-efficacy at the end of the semester could be an outcome of mid-
41 term exam scores based on their reciprocal relationship (Williams & Williams,
42
43
2010). Jones et al. (2012) found that mid-term math grades had a positive
44 relationship with incremental theory of intelligence measured later in the year. In
45 addition, there could be possible mediator relationships that we were unable to
46 explore in this study due to the timing of measurements. Gonzales and Paoloni
47 (2015a) found that situational interest was a mediator between indicators of
48
student engagement (effort, persistence, and attention) and performance in
49
50 physics. Student engagement has been linked to numerous motivation-related
51 processes such as persistence, interest, and effort (Ainley, 2012; Skinner,
52 Kinderman, and Furrer, 2009). By staggering the assessments of students’ self-
53 efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs across time, it becomes possible to look at
54 temporally causal and mediator relationships among them. This work is vital for
55
56
understanding a bigger picture of how student motivation develops and evolves
57 over time in introductory chemistry courses.
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
Despite these limitations, we believe the work presented here is important
4
5 for the chemical education community by adding to the burgeoning base of
6 research on affective and motivational processes of chemistry students. We have

7 presented the performance impacts of several motivational variables and
8 highlighted the connections that exist between them. More research is needed to
9 further our understanding of the complexities that exist with respect to academic
10
11 motivation in the hopes of improving our curricula to enhance learning among
12 future students.
13
14 References
15
16
Abdullah, M., (2008). Children’s implicit theories of intelligence: its relationships
17
18 with self-efficacy, goal orientations, and self-regulated learning. The

19 International Journal of Learning, 15(2), 47-56.
20 Ainley, M. (2012). Students’ interest and engagement in classroom activities. In
21 S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on
22 student engagement (pp. 283-302). New York: Springer.
23
24 Arjoon, J. A., Xu, X., and Lewis, J. E., (2013). Understanding the State of the Art
25 for Measurement in Chemistry Education Research: Examining the
26 Psychometric Evidence. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(5), 536-545.
27 Bandura, A., (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control: New York: Freeman.
28 Barbera, J., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C. E., and Perkins, K. K., (2008). Modifying
29
30
and validating the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for
31 use in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(10), 1435-1439.
32 Barbera, J., and VandenPlas, J. R., (2011). All Assessment Materials Are Not
33 Created Equal: The Myths about Instrument Development, Validity, and
34 Reliability Investigating Classroom Myths through Research on Teaching
35 and Learning (Vol. 1074, pp. 177-193): American Chemical Society.
36
37 Bathgate, M. E., Schunn, C. D., and Correnti, R., (2014). Children's Motivation
38 Toward Science Across Contexts, Manner of Interaction, and Topic.
39 Science Education, 98(2), 189-215. doi: 10.1002/sce.21095
40 Bauer, C. F., (2005). Beyond "student attitudes": Chemistry self-concept
41 inventory for assessment of the affective component of student learning.
42
43
Journal of Chemical Education, 82(12), 1864-1870.
44 Bauer, C. F., (2008). Attitude toward Chemistry: A Semantic Differential
45 Instrument for Assessing Curriculum Impacts. Journal of Chemical
46 Education, 85(10), 1440.
47 Bentler, P. M., (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
48
Psychological bulletin,107(2), 238-246.
49
50 Black, A. E, and Deci, E. L., (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support
51 and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A
52 self- determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740-756.
53 Blackwell, L. (2002). Psychological mediators of student achievement during the
54 transition to junior high school: The role of implicit theories. (Unpublished
55
56
Doctoral Dissertation), Columbia University, New York.
57
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K. H., and Dweck, C. S., (2007). Implicit theories of
4
5 intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A
6 longitudinal study and an intervention. Child development, 78(1), 246-263.

7 Bong, M., (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college
8 students' course performance and future enrollment intentions.
9 Contemporary educational psychology, 26(4), 553-570.
10
11 Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., and Larivee, S., (1991). Influence of self-
12 efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high-
13 school age students. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
14 14(2), 153-164.
15 Brandriet, A. R., Ward, R. M., and Bretz, S. L., (2013). Modeling meaningful
16
learning in chemistry using structural equation modeling. Chemistry
17
18 Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 421-430.

19 Browne, M. W, and Cudeck, R., (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit.
20 Sociological Methods and Research, 21(2), 230-258.
21 Byrne, B. M., (2013). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and
22 SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming: Psychology
23
24 Press.
25 Carter, C. , LaRussa, M. A., and Bodner, G. M., (1987). A study of two measures
26 of spatial ability as predictors of success in different levels of general
27 chemistry. Journal of research in science teaching, 24(7), 645-657.
28 Chan, Julia Y. K., and Bauer, C. F., (2014). Identifying At-Risk Students in
29
30
General Chemistry via Cluster Analysis of Affective Characteristics.
31 Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1417-1425.
32 Chan, Julia Y. K., and Bauer, C. F., (2015). Effect of peer-led team learning
33 (PLTL) on student achievement, attitude, and self-concept in college
34 general chemistry in randomized and quasi experimental designs. Journal
35 of research in science teaching, 52(3), 319-346.
36
37 Cheung, G. W, and Rensvold, R. B., (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes
38 for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2),
39 233-255.
40 Cole, D. A, and Preacher, K. J., (2014). Manifest variable path analysis:
41 Potentially serious and misleading consequences due to uncorrected
42
43
measurement error. Psychological methods, 19(2), 300-315.
44 Curran, P. J., West, S. G., and Finch, J. F., (1996). The robustness of test
45 statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor
46 analysis. Psychological methods, 1(1), 16-29.
47 Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., and Jones, A., (2003). Development of Chemistry
48
Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of research in
49
50 science teaching, 40(7), 649-668.
51 Dalgety, J., and Coll, R. K., (2006). The influence of first-year chemistry students’
52
learning experiences on their educational choices Assessment and
53
54 Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 303-328.
55 Dweck, C. S., (2012). Implicit Theories. In P. V. Lange, A. Kruglanski and T.
56 Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
57 43-61). London: Sage.
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
Ferrell, B. and Barbera, J., (2015). Analysis of students' self-efficacy, interest,
4
5 and effort beliefs in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and
6 Practice, 16(2), 318-337.

7 Fidell, L. S., and Tabachnick, B. G., (2003). Preparatory Data Analysis. In I. B.
8 Weiner, J. A. Schinka and W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology -
9 Research Methods in Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 115 - 142). Hoboken, NJ:
10
11 John Wiley and Sons.
12 Galloway, K. R., Malakpa, Z., and Bretz, S. L., (2016). Investigating Affective
13 Experiences in the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory: Students’
14 Perceptions of Control and Responsibility. Journal of Chemical Education,
15 93(2), 227-238. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00737
16
Gist, M. E., and Mitchell, T. R., (1992). Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its
17
18 Determinants and Malleability. The Academy of Management Review,

19 17(2), 183-211.
20 Gonzalez, A., & Paoloni, P. V. (2015a). Engagement and performance in
21 physics: The role of class instructional strategies, and student’s personal
22 and situational interest. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 20(1), 25-45.
23
24 Gonzalez, A., and Paoloni, V. P., (2015b). Perceived autonomy-support,
25 expectancy, value, metacognitive strategies and performance in
26 chemistry: a structural equation model in undergraduates. Chemistry
27 Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 640-653.
28 Gore, P. A., (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes:
29
30
Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1),
31 92-115.
32 Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., and Elliot, A. J.,
33 (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals:
34 Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of educational
35 Psychology, 92(2), 316-330.
36
37 Harackiewicz, J. M., Durik, A. M., Barron, K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., and
38 Tauer, J. M., (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of
39 interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and
40 performance. Journal of educational Psychology, 100(1), 105-122.
41 Häussler, P., and Hoffmann, L., (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls'
42
43
interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of
44 research in science teaching, 39(9), 870-888. doi: 10.1002/tea.10048
45 Hermida, R., (2015). The problem of allowing correlated errors in structural
46 equation modeling: concerns and considerations. Computational Methods
47 in Social Sciences, 3(1), 1-17.
48
Hidi, S., and Renninger, K. A., (2006). The four-phase model of interest
49
50 development. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
51 House, D. J. (1995). Noncognitive predictors of achievement in introductory
52 college chemistry. Research in Higher Education, 36(4), 473-490.
53 Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M., (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
54 structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
55
56
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
57
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
Huck, S., (2012). Reading Statistics and Research (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
4
5 Pearson.
6 Hull-Blanks, Elva, Kurpius, S. E. R., Befort, C., Sollenberger, S., Nicpon, M. F.,

7 and Huser, L., (2005). Career goals and retention-related factors among
8 college freshmen. Journal of Career Development, 32(1), 16-30.
9 Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., and Harackiewicz, J. M., (2010).
10
11 Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention.
12 Journal of educational Psychology, 102(4), 880-895. doi:
13 10.1037/a0019506
14 Hulleman, C. S., and Harackiewicz, J. M., (2009). Promoting interest and
15 performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410-
16
1412.
17
18 Jones, B. D., Wilkins, J. L. M., Long, M. H., and Wang, F. H., (2012). Testing a
19 motivational model of achievement: How students' mathematical beliefs
20 and interests are related to their achievement. European Journal of
21 Psychology of Education, 27(1), 1-20.
22 Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D., (2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows. Computer
23
24 Software. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
25 Kenny, D. A., (1979). Correlation and Causality. New York: Wiley.
26 Landis, R., Edwards, B. D., and Cortina, J., (2009). Correlated residuals among
27 items in the estimation of measurement models. In R. J. Vandenberg and
28 C. E. Lance (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban
29
30
legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social
31 sciences. New York: Routledge.
32 Larson, L. M., Stephen, A., Bonitz, V. S., and Wu, T. F., (2014). Predicting
33 Science Achievement in India Role of Gender, Self-Efficacy, Interests, and
34 Effort. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(1), 89-101.
35 Lee, W., Lee, M. J., and Bong, M., (2014). Testing interest and self-efficacy as
36
37 predictors of academic self-regulation and achievement. Contemporary
38 educational psychology, 39(2), 86-99.
39 Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Brenner, B., Chopra, S. B., Davis, T., Talleyrand, R.,
40 and Suthakaran, V., (2001). The role of contextual supports and barriers in
41 the choice of math/science educational options: A test of social cognitive
42
43
hypotheses. Journal of counseling psychology, 48(4), 474-483.
44 Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Hackett, G., (1994). Toward a unifying social
45 cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and
46 performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122.
47 Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Larkin, K. C., (1984). Relation of self-efficacy
48
expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of
49
50 counseling psychology, 31(3), 356.
51 Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Larkin, K. C., (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction
52 of academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of
53 counseling psychology, 33(3), 265-269.
54 Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., Singley, D., Schmidt, J. A., Schmidt, L. C., and Gloster,
55
56
C. S., (2008). Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome
57
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
expectations, interests, and major choice goals in engineering students.
4
5 Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 328-335.
6 Lewis, S. E., and Lewis, J. E., (2007). Predicting at-risk students in general

7 chemistry: comparing formal thought to a general achievement measure.
8 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8(1), 32-51.
9 Lewis, S. E., Shaw, J. L., Heitz, J. O., and Webster, G. H., (2009). Attitude
10
11 Counts: Self-Concept and Success in General Chemistry. Journal of
12 Chemical Education, 86(6), 744. doi: 10.1021/ed086p744
13 Lightsey, R., (1999). Albert Bandura and the Exercise of Self-Efficacy. Journal of
14 Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13(2), 158-166.
15 Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A. M., Conley, A. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M.,
16
Karabenick, S. A., and Harackiewicz, J. M., (2010). Measuring Situational
17
18 Interest in Academic Domains. Educational and psychological

19 measurement, 70(4), 647-671.
20 Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., and Messersmith, E. E., (2013).
21 Antecedents and consequences of situational interest. British Journal of
22 Educational Psychology, 83(4), 591-614. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
23
24 8279.2012.02080.x
25 MacCallum, R. C., (2003). 2001 Presidential address: Working with imperfect
26 models. Multivariate behavioral research, 38(1), 113-139.
27 Marsh, H. W., and Bailey, M., (1991). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-
28 multimethod data: A comparison of alternative models. Applied
29
30
psychological measurement, 15(1), 47-70.
31 Mataka, L. M., and Kowalske, M. G., (2015). The influence of PBL on students'
32 self-efficacy beliefs in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and
33 Practice, 16(4), 929-938.
34 Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., and Lent, R. W., (1991). Relation of self-efficacy
35 beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of
36
37 counseling psychology, 38(1), 30.
38 Nauta, M. M., Kahn, J. H., Angell, J. W., and Cantarelli, E. A., (2002). Identifying
39 the antecedent in the relation between career interests and self-efficacy: Is
40 it one, the other, or both? Journal of counseling psychology, 49(3), 290-
41 301.
42
43
Nielsen, S. E., and Yezierski, E., (2015). Exploring the Structure and Function of
44 the Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory with High School Chemistry
45 Students. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(11), 1782-1789.
46 Nieswandt, M., (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning
47 chemistry. Journal of research in science teaching, 44(7), 908-937.
48
Osborne, J., and Waters, E., (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression
49
50 that researchers should always test. Practical assessment, research and
51 evaluation, 8(2), 1-9.
52 Pajares, F., (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of
53 educational research, 66(4), 543-578.
54 Pajares, F., and Kranzler, J., (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental
55
56
ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary educational
57 psychology, 20(4), 426-443.
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
Pajares, F., and Miller, D. M., (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept
4
5 beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of
6 educational Psychology, 86(2), 193-203.

7 Pajares, F., and Miller, D. M., (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics
8 performances: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of
9 counseling psychology, 42(2), 190-198.
10
11 Pedhazur, E. J., (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation
12 and prediction (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
13 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P., (2003).
14 Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the
15 literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
16
88(5), 879-903.
17
18 Raykov, T., and Marcoulides, G. A., (2000). A First Course in Structural Equation
19 Modeling. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20 Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., and Carlstrom, A.,
21 (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes?
22 A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.
23
24 Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Müller, H., (2003). Evaluating the
25 fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive
26 goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2),
27 23-74.
28 Siegel, R. G., Galassi, J. P., and Ware, W. B., (1985). A comparison of two
29
30
models for predicting mathematics performance: Social learning versus
31 math aptitude–anxiety. Journal of counseling psychology, 32(4), 531-538.
32 Silvia, P. J., (2003). Self-efficacy and interest: Experimental studies of optimal
33 incompetence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(2), 237-249.
34 Skinner, E., Kinderman, T., & Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on
35 engagement and disaffection. Conceptualization and assessment of
36
37 children’s behavioral and emotional participation in the academic activities
38 in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3),
39 493-525.
40 Smist, J. M., (1993). General Chemistry and Self-Efficacy. Paper presented at
41 the Paper presented at the American Chemical Society national meeting,
42
43
Chicago, IL.
44 Smith, P. L., and Fouad, N. A., (1999). Subject-matter specificity of self-efficacy,
45 outcome expectancies, interests, and goals: Implications for the social–
46 cognitive model. Journal of counseling psychology, 46(4), 461-471.
47 Sorich, L., and Dweck, C. S. (1997). Reliability data for new scales measuring
48
students' beliefs about effort and responses to failure. Unpublished raw
49
50 data. Columbia University.
51 Spencer, H. E., (1996). Mathematical SAT test scores and college chemistry
52 grades. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(12), 1150-1153.
53 Steiger, J. H., (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval
54 estimation approach. Multivariate behavioral research, 25(2), 173-180.
55
56
Streiner, D. L., (2005). Finding our way: an introduction to path analysis.
57 Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(2), 115-122.
58
59
60
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00148C
1
2
3
Streiner, D. L., (2006). Building a Better Model: An Introduction to Structural
4
5 Equation Modelling. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51(5), 317-324.
6 Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., and Gijselaers, W. H., (2015). The

7 Pivotal Role of Effort Beliefs in Mediating Implicit Theories of Intelligence
8 and Achievement Goals and Academic Motivations. Social Psychology of
9 Education, 18(1), 101-120.
10
11 Uzuntiryaki, E., and Aydin, Y. C., (2009). Development and Validation of
12 Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale for College Students. Research in Science
13 Education, 39(4), 539-551.
14 Villafane, S. M., Garcia, A. C., and Lewis, J. E., (2014). Exploring diverse
15 students' trends in chemistry self-efficacy throughout a semester of
16
college-level preparatory chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and
17
18 Practice, 15(2), 114-127.

19 Villafane, S. M., and Lewis, J. E., (2016). Exploring a measure of science attitude
20 for different groups of students enrolled in introductory college chemistry.
21 Chemistry Education Research and Practice.
22 Vuong, M., Brown-Welty, S., and Tracz, S., (2010). The effects of self-efficacy on
23
24 academic success of first-generation college sophomore students. Journal
25 of College Student Development, 51(1), 50-64.
26 Weiner, B., (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of
27 educational Psychology, 82(4), 616-622.
28 Williams, T., & Williams, K. (2010). Self-efficacy and performance in
29
30
mathematics: Reciprocal determinism in 33 nations. Journal of educational
31 Psychology, 102(2), 453.
32 Wright, S. L., Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., and Murdock, J. L., (2012). Career
33 development among first-year college students: College self-efficacy,
34 student persistence, and academic success. Journal of Career
35 Development, 292-310.
36
37 Xu, X., Kim, E. S., and Lewis, J. E., (2016). Sex difference in spatial ability for
38 college students and exploration of measurement invariance. Learning
39 and Individual differences, 45, 176-184.
40 Xu, X., and Lewis, J. E., (2011). Refinement of a Chemistry Attitude Measure for
41 College Students. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(5), 561-568.
42
43
Xu, X., Villafane, S. M., and Lewis, J. E., (2013). College students' attitudes
44 toward chemistry, conceptual knowledge and achievement: structural
45 equation model analysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
46 14(2), 188-200.
47 Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., and Coppola, B., (2003). Skill and will: The role of
48
motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International
49
50 Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1081-1094.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Ferrell2016 - Connecting Achievement Motivation To Performance in General Chemistry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ferrell2016 - Connecting Achievement Motivation To Performance in General Chemistry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

View Article Online

This is an Accepted Manuscript, which has been through the

Accepted Manuscripts are published online shortly after

You can find more information about Accepted Manuscripts in the

Please note that technical editing may introduce minor changes

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 over the course of a semester in three sections of a first-semester general

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 publication, we provide a detailed description and literature review on each

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 Self-efficacy is the most widely studied of these constructs in terms of the

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 significantly predicted academic performance in college psychology. In this study,

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 effects (Pedhazur, 1997). A related technique, structural equation modeling is

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 d1# d2# d1# d2#

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 graded performance feedback. This can then be compared to data collected at

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 instructors could target interest and self-efficacy in their teaching strategies,

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 with self-efficacy, goal orientations, and self-regulated learning. The

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 421-430.

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 Determinants and Malleability. The Academy of Management Review,

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 Interest in Academic Domains. Educational and psychological

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

18 Practice, 15(2), 114-127.

You might also like