Chemistry Education Research and Practice: Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry
Education Research
and Practice
Accepted Manuscript
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 47 Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

1
2
3
Assessing motivation to learn chemistry: adaptation and validation of Science
4
5
6 Motivation Questionnaire II with Greek secondary school students
7
8 Katerina Saltab,c and Dionysios Koulougliotisa
9
10
11
a
12 Technological Educational Institute (T.E.I.) of Ionian Islands, Department of
13
14 Environmental Technology, Neo Ktirio – Panagoula, 29100, Zakynthos, Greece
15 b
16 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of Chemistry,
17 Panepistimiopolis, 15701 Athens, Greece
18
c nd
19 2 Model Experimental Upper Secondary School of Athens, Panagi Kyriakou 12,
20
21 11521, Athens, Greece
22
23
24
Corresponding author:
25
26 DionysiosKoulougliotis
27 Professor
28 Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Ionian Islands
29 Department of Environmental Technology
30 Neo Ktirio - Panagoula, 29100, Zakynthos, Greece
31
32 e-mail: dkoul@teiion.gr
33 Tel: +30-26950-24940
34 Fax: +30-26950-24949
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
Chemistry Education Research and Practice Page 2 of 47

1
2
3
4
5
6 Abstract
7
8 In educational research, the availability of a validated version of an original
9
10
11
instrument in a different language offers the possibility for valid measurements
12
13 obtained within the specific educational context and in addition it provides the
14
15 opportunity for valid cross-cultural comparisons. The present study aimed to adapt the
16
17
18 Science Motivation Questionnaire II (SMQ II) for application into a different cultural
19
20 context (Greece), a different age group (secondary school students) and with a focus
21
22 on chemistry learning. Subsequently, the Greek version of Chemistry Motivation
23
24
25 Questionnaire II (Greek CMQ II) was used in order to investigate Greek secondary
26
27 school students’ motivation to learn chemistry for the first time. The sample consisted
28
29
30
of 330 secondary school students (163 boys - 167 girls) of which 146 were in lower
31
32 secondary school (14-15 y) and 184 were in upper secondary school (16-17 y).
33
34 Confirmatory factor analyses provided evidence for the validity of Greek CMQ II, as
35
36
37 well as for configural, metric and scalar invariance, thus allowing meaningful
38
39 comparisons between groups. The five motivation components of the original
40
41 instrument namely grade motivation, career motivation, intrinsic motivation, self-
42
43
44 efficacy, and self-determination were confirmed. Gender-based comparisons showed
45
46 that girls had higher self-determination relative to the boys irrespective of age group.
47
48 In addition, girls in lower secondary school had higher career and intrinsic motivation
49
50
51 relative to the boys of the same age group. Age-based comparisons showed that lower
52
53 secondary school students had higher grade motivation relative to upper secondary
54
55
56
school students.
57
58
59
60
2

1
2
3
Keywords: motivation, assessment, validation, secondary school science, chemistry
4
5
6 education
7
8 Introduction
9
10
11
The study of the role of motivation in learning science is constantly gaining the
12
13 attention of science education researchers (Koballa and Glynn, 2007). In recent
14
15 science education literature, motivation is considered as “a complex multidimensional
16
17
18 construct that interacts with cognition to influence learning” (Taasoobshirazi and
19
20 Sinatra, 2011, p. 904). Both cognitive and motivational learner characteristics interact
21
22 within a specific learning environment in order to support or hinder conceptual
23
24
25 change (Dole and Sinatra, 1998). Pintrich and his colleagues (1993) have adopted four
26
27 general motivational constructs (namely goals, values, self-efficacy, and control
28
29
30
beliefs) as potential mediators of the learner’s conceptual change and suggested that
31
32 they may influence science learning both in the short term and over longer periods of
33
34 time as well. In addition, a series of contextual factors, including the classroom
35
36
37 environment, the teacher, the nature of academic tasks, and the assessment processes
38
39 have been proposed to moderate the interactions between motivational constructs and
40
41 science learning (Pintrich et al., 1993).
42
43
44 The complex multidimensional nature of motivation has been brought out via the use
45
46 of social cognitive theory which has been systematically employed over the last
47
48 fifteen years in order to explain human learning and motivation in terms of reciprocal
49
50
51 interactions involving personal characteristics (e.g., intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy,
52
53 and self-determination), environmental contexts (e.g., high school), and behaviour
54
55
56
(e.g., enrolling in advanced science or chemistry courses) (Bandura, 2001; Pintrich,
57
58 2003).
59
60
3

1
2
3
Concentrating on the role of motivation in learning science and more specifically
4
5
6 chemistry as a distinct science subject, a recent study by Zusho et al. (2003) provided
7
8 evidence that students’ beliefs in relation with self-efficacy and task-value are
9
10
11
significant predictors of their performance in chemistry. The same researchers also
12
13 reported that students’ judgments of their confidence to do well in the chemistry class
14
15 decreased over time, and as a result students beliefs about the importance and/or
16
17
18 usefulness of the chemistry course tended to deteriorate as well. Moreover, evidence
19
20 has been provided that poor motivation to learn chemistry often leads students to turn
21
22 away from advanced chemistry studies and chemistry related careers (Salta et al.,
23
24
25 2012).
26
27 The constantly increasing interest for the study of students’ motivation to learn
28
29
30
science has triggered the development of several instruments for measuring students’
31
32 motivation based on different theoretical perspectives. From the perspective of social
33
34 cognitive theory, Glynn and his colleagues (2011) have developed and evaluated the
35
36
37 Science Motivation Questionnaire II (SMQ II). This instrument has been found to be a
38
39 reliable and valid tool which leads to the assessment of the following five components
40
41 of students’ motivation to learn science in college courses in USA (Glynn et al.,
42
43
44 2011): intrinsic motivation, self-determination, self-efficacy, career motivation, and
45
46 grade motivation.
47
48 The main purpose of the present study has been the adaptation and validation of the
49
50
51 chemistry specific version of SMQ II (ie the Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire II
52
53 or briefly CMQ II) with Greek students (thus producing the Greek CMQ II). The
54
55
56
rational behind this work lies on the need for the availability of valid measurements
57
58 which will subsequently allow for cross-cultural comparisons in order to explore the
59
60 proposed influence of the cultural context on the motivational constructs (Pintrich,
4

1
2
3
2003). Besides the different cultural context (Greece relative to USA), two additional
4
5
6 factors are changed in the current study relative to the original work of Glynn et al.
7
8 (2011): a) students belong to a younger age group and different educational level
9
10
11
(secondary school relative to college) and b) the focus is on measuring motivation to
12
13 learn a specific science subject which is chemistry.
14
15 Thus, the specific research questions that have guided this study can be summarized
16
17
18 as follows:
19
20 1) How valid is the Greek version of the “Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire
21
22 II” (Greek CMQ II) for measuring secondary school students’ motivation to
23
24
25 learn chemistry?
26
27 Subsequently, if Greek CMQ II proves to be valid,
28
29
30
2) Which are the motivational characteristics of Greek secondary school students
31
32 to learn chemistry?
33
34 3) What are the differences in motivation to learn chemistry between Greek
35
36
37 lower and upper secondary school students?
38
39 4) What are the differences in motivation to learn chemistry between Greek male
40
41 and female secondary students?
42
43
44
45
46 Theoretical Framework
47
48 The term “motivation” has been defined “as the attribute that ‘moves’ us to do or not
49
50
51 do something” (Gredler, 2001 as cited in Broussard and Garrison, 2004, p. 106). In
52
53 education, motivation to learn is broadly considered as “the internal state that arouses,
54
55
56
directs, and sustains students’ behaviour” (Koballa and Glynn, 2007, p. 85).
57
58 According to Brophy (1983) “motivation to learn refers to the enduring disposition of
59
60 students to enjoy the process of learning and take pride in the outcomes of experience
5

1
2
3
involving knowledge acquisition or skill development” (p. 200). Hence, modern
4
5
6 theories of motivation focus mainly “on the relation of beliefs, values, and goals with
7
8 action” (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002, p. 110).
9
10
11
Research on motivation associated with academic achievement and/or development
12
13 has been conducted via different theoretical perspectives and has led to the
14
15 development of an extensive motivation terminology (Murphy and Alexander, 2000).
16
17
18 In fact, theorists have indicated the need for theoretical integration in the domain
19
20 (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). The main theoretical perspectives that have been
21
22 employed in the study and conceptualization of motivation can be briefly summarized
23
24
25 as follows.
26
27 Achievement goal theory or simply goal theory (Ames, 1992; Blumenfeld, 1992)
28
29
30
relates students’ goals to their achievement behaviour. The main idea in this
31
32 perspective is the “goal orientations” that refer to students’ beliefs about the purpose
33
34 of engaging in achievement-related behaviour.
35
36
37 Self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000) postulated that an understanding of
38
39 human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological needs for
40
41 competence, autonomy and relatedness. As reviewed in Deci and Ryan (2000), a
42
43
44 social context which supports these three needs tends to enhance intrinsic motivation
45
46 and facilitate the internalization of extrinsic motivation. Subsequently, enhanced
47
48 motivation seems to be associated with positive affective experiences, and high-
49
50
51 quality performance.
52
53 The theoretical concept of interest has attracted researchers’ attention over the past
54
55
56
few years (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2001; Schiefele, 1999), and has been proposed to be
57
58 connected with intrinsic motivation to learn by educational psychologists (Koballa
59
60 and Glynn, 2007). A distinction between individual and situational interest is typically
6

1
2
3
made. Particularly, individual interest is considered as a relatively stable orientation
4
5
6 towards certain domains in contrast with situational interest that is an emotional state
7
8 aroused by specific features of a task (Hidi and Renninger, 2006). Much research on
9
10
11
the relation between individual interest and learning has been conducted (Renninger
12
13 et al., 2002; Schiefele, 1999). An important finding was the stronger relationship
14
15 between interest and deep- learning than with rote learning (Schiefele, 1999).
16
17
18 Finally, the theoretical perspective of the social cognitive theory, originally developed
19
20 by Bandura (1986) and extended by the same and other researchers (Bandura, 2001;
21
22 Pajares and Schunk, 2001; Pintrich, 2003), conceptualizes the process of learning via
23
24
25 a series of reciprocal interactions among personal, behavioural and
26
27 social/environmental factors. Within the framework of social cognitive theory,
28
29
30
Pintrich and his colleagues (1993) proposed a conceptual change model for describing
31
32 students’ learning and postulated that the cognitive and motivational constructs
33
34 influence each other and at the same time they are influenced by the social context. In
35
36
37 turn, both cognitive and motivational constructs are assumed to influence students’
38
39 involvement with their learning and, consequently, achievement outcomes (Pintrich,
40
41 2000).
42
43
44 As also noted in the Introduction, the social cognitive theory conceptualizes
45
46 motivation to learn as a multidimensional construct which is therefore comprised of
47
48 several components (also referred in Glynn et al. (2011) as “types and attributes of
49
50
51 motivation”). Many motivational components linked to learning science have been
52
53 studied extensively and reviewed in Glynn and Koballa (2006), Koballa and Glynn
54
55
56
(2007), Pintrich (2003), and Schunk et al. (2008). Examples of these components are
57
58 intrinsic motivation, which involves the inherent satisfaction in learning science for its
59
60 own sake (e.g., Eccles et al., 2006); extrinsic motivation, which involves learning
7

1
2
3
science as a means to a tangible end, such as a career or a grade (e.g., Mazlo et al.,
4
5
6 2002); self-determination, which refers to the control students believe they have over
7
8 their learning of science (e.g., Black and Deci, 2000); and self-efficacy, which refers
9
10
11
to students’ belief that they can achieve well in science (e.g., Lawson et al., 2007).
12
13 The above examples of motivation components are also included in the list of 20
14
15 motivation terms proposed to be relevant to academic achievement and motivation
16
17
18 (Murphy and Alexander, 2000). This “corpus” of terms contains motivation
19
20 components associated with all four theoretical perspectives of motivation we referred
21
22 to above.
23
24
25 In the following part of this theoretical section a brief overview of the literature on
26
27 motivation to learn science with a focus on chemistry will be made. With regard to
28
29
30
students’ motivational characteristics toward a specific science domain, there is
31
32 evidence that even in pre-primary school, children express some differences in their
33
34 motivation toward different science disciplines (Mantzicopoulos et al., 2008).
35
36
37 Focusing on chemistry learning, there exist some studies which have attempted to
38
39 examine how it may be influenced by students’ motivation (Aydin and Uzuntiryaki,
40
41 2009; Black and Deci, 2000; Feng and Tuan, 2005; Juriševič et al., 2008; Mazlo et
42
43
44 al., 2002; Scherer, 2013; Taasoobshirazi and Glynn, 2009; Zusho et al., 2003). Black
45
46 and Deci (2000) applied self-determination theory to investigate the effects of
47
48 students’ course-specific self-regulation and their perceptions of their instructors’
49
50
51 autonomy support on adjustment and academic performance in a college-level organic
52
53 chemistry course. Their results have shown that the students’ perceived instructor
54
55
56
autonomy support is related to positive adjustment and to increased students’
57
58 autonomy as the semester progresses, which is in turn related to better performance.
59
60 Zusho and his colleagues (2003) evidenced on one hand an overall decline in college
8

1
2
3
students’ motivational levels over time and on the other an increase in students’ use of
4
5
6 organizational and self-regulatory strategies. A diversity of trends was found which
7
8 were shown to be dependent on students’ achievement levels. Finally, the relation of
9
10
11
motivation to achievement was evidenced via the identification of two motivational
12
13 components, namely self-efficacy and task value, as “best predictors of final course
14
15 performance even after controlling for prior achievement” (Zusho et al.,2003, p.
16
17
18 1081).
19
20 Research conducted by Juriševič and her colleagues (2008) showed that Slovene first
21
22
year pre-service primary school student teachers (18.5 years old) are more or less
23
24
25 equally motivated for chemistry as for any other subject, but their intrinsic motivation
26
27 decreases as the level of abstraction increases. It has been similarly established that
28
29
30
among the three levels of chemistry learning—namely, macroscopic, submicroscopic,
31
32 and symbolic—students were the least motivated to study concepts at the symbolic
33
34 level (Juriševič et al., 2008). Taasoobshirazi and Glynn (2009) found that college
35
36
37 students’ self-efficacy influenced strategy use and chemistry problem solving.
38
39 Students with relatively high chemistry self-efficacy tended to use a working-forward
40
41 strategy and solve problems successfully while students with relatively low chemistry
42
43
44 self-efficacy tended to use a working-backward strategy and solve the problems
45
46 incorrectly. Their findings are consistent with other studies conducted on students’
47
48
chemistry self-efficacy, such as those of Zusho et al. (2003) and Schraw et al. (2005).
49
50
51 Moreover, Scherer (2013) has provided evidence for the empirical distinction between
52
53 the motivation components of self-concept and self-efficacy within the domain of
54
55
56 chemistry. By using data collected by 459 German high-school students (mean age
57
58 16.6 years), he found that students' perceptions of themselves within the academic
59
60 environment (academic self-concept) are not the same with their perceptions about
9

1
2
3
their ability to master given tasks or develop specific competences (academic self-
4
5
6 efficacy) within the domain of chemistry. However, his results indicated that the two
7
8 constructs affect each other.
9
10
11
12
13 Cultural and contextual effects in motivation to learn science and chemistry
14
15 One of the aims of social cognitive theory is exploring the influence that different
16
17
18 contextual and cultural practices may have on students’ motivation. According to
19
20 Brophy (2004), the psychology of motivation that has been developed by studies in
21
22 western countries is reflective of a common human condition and thus equally
23
24
25 applicable everywhere. However, comparative research has identified interesting
26
27 contrasts between nations and world regions. For example, Hufton et al. (2002) found
28
29
30
that Russian adolescents showed patterns of school-related motivation that contrasted
31
32 in several respects with those displayed by American and British adolescents.
33
34 Particularly, Russian students tend to maintain task engagement even though their
35
36
37 teachers are short on praise and overly persistent on correction. It is suggested that
38
39 this pattern reflects a pervasive Russian cultural value on becoming an educated
40
41 person.
42
43
44 Perhaps the most significant cultural differences have been observed between people
45
46 from western nations (e.g., the United States and Western Europe) and people from
47
48 East Asia (e.g., China, Korea, and Japan). Studies have shown that in the former
49
50
51 countries people display a more individualistic attitude and their self-concepts
52
53 emphasize uniqueness and independence from others. On the other hand, people from
54
55
56
East Asia display a more collectivistic attitude with self-concepts which are
57
58 interdependent (Boekaerts, 1998; Fiske et al., 1998). These general differences lead to
59
60 differences on more specific motivational aspects. In attributing behaviour to causes,
10

1
2
3
for example, East Asians tend to make fewer references to personal dispositions but
4
5
6 more references to situational factors than westerners do (Choi et al., 1999; Krull et
7
8 al., 1999). Other studies have indicated that East Asians also tend to be more
9
10
11
comfortable setting up their personal agendas by taking into account those of their
12
13 families or groups. For example, East Asian (but not American) students display
14
15 increased benefit perception of goal achievement when they pursue goals in order to
16
17
18 please others (e.g. parents or friends) (Oishi and Diener, 2001). Similarly, East Asian
19
20 students seem to show higher levels of intrinsic motivation relative to American
21
22 students “when choices are made for them by trusted significant others” rather “than
23
24
25 when they make the choices themselves” (Iyengar and Lepper, 1999).
26
27 Moreover, also within a specific cultural context, differences have been observed in
28
29
30
students’ motivational patterns depending on age, gender and family environment.
31
32 Different grade levels present somewhat different motivational challenges because of
33
34 age-related changes in students’ motivational patterns. Thus, there is evidence that the
35
36
37 enthusiastic start of schooling by most students is followed by gradual decrease on
38
39 measures of intrinsic motivation, curiosity and school-related attitudes. (Gentry et al.,
40
41 2002; Gottfried et al., 2001; Wigfield and Eccles, 2002). Potvin et al. (2009)
42
43
44 suggested that the first 2 years of high school may be a critical period when students
45
46 turn toward or away from a science career path; whereas Bryan et al. (2011) argued
47
48 that for those students who turn towards a science career path the last 2 years of high
49
50
51 school may be a critical period for motivation to learn particular areas/disciplines of
52
53 science.
54
55
56
As students develop in our society, they are exposed to gender role socialization.
57
58 Thus, certain family and social roles, occupations, personal attributes, and ways of
59
60 dressing and behaving are considered primarily feminine, while others primarily
11

1
2
3
masculine. Most students have certain individuals they encounter in their personal
4
5
6 lives and in the media as role models. The behaviour expressed by the students
7
8 reflects the messages they receive from their parents and peers (and even sometimes
9
10
11
their teachers) (Li, 1999; Tenenbaum and Leaper, 2003). To the extent at which a
12
13 specific school activity is associated primarily with one gender, students’ attitudes and
14
15 expectations are likely to be affected.
16
17
18 Focusing on the role of gender on students’ motivation to learn science, recent
19
20 research by Glynn et al. (2011) has provided evidence for a gender effect favouring
21
22 college male students with regard to a specific motivational construct, namely self-
23
24
25 efficacy. On the other hand, a study conducted among upper secondary school
26
27 students and in a cross-cultural context which included four countries namely
28
29
30
Malaysia, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Turkey revealed more complicated relationships
31
32 between gender and motivation (Zeyer et al, 2013).
33
34
35
36
37 Measuring students’ motivational constructs
38
39 A motivational construct generally corresponds to a latent variable which is a
40
41 presumed explanatory variable to reflect a continuum that is not directly observable
42
43
44 (Kline, 2011). Thus a construct may be assessed only indirectly; this is achieved via
45
46 measuring certain items which indicate empirically how the specific construct is
47
48 conceptualized by the subject. Students’ conceptualizations are important since they
49
50
51 tend to influence their actions (McGinnis et al., 2002; Scott et al., 2007).
52
53 Recently, several studies have focused on developing students’ motivation scales to
54
55
56
learn science (Glynn and Koballa, 2006; Glynn et al., 2009; 2011; Tuan et al., 2005;
57
58 Velayutham et al., 2011). A Students’ Motivation towards Science Learning
59
60 (SMTSL) questionnaire was developed by Tuan and her colleagues (2005) and was
12

1
2
3
validated with junior high school students from central Taiwan. The researchers
4
5
6 identified six motivational constructs: self-efficacy, active learning strategies, science
7
8 learning value, performance goal, achievement goal, and learning environment
9
10
11
stimulation. The SMTSL questionnaire has been used as a tool for measurement of
12
13 change in students’ learning motives after the implementation of specific activities in
14
15 a chemistry course (Feng and Tuan, 2005). Recently, the SMTSL questionnaire has
16
17
18 been adapted in the Greek language and has been used in undergraduate student
19
20 teachers with reference to physics learning (Dermitzaki et al., 2013). Nonetheless, the
21
22 developers have annotated the conceptualization and measurement of some constructs
23
24
25 as ambiguous and not theoretically sound (Tuan et al., 2005). Another instrument, the
26
27 Students’ Adaptive Learning Engagement in Science questionnaire was developed by
28
29
30
Velayutham and her colleagues (2011) based on theoretical and research
31
32 underpinnings. The validation process resulted on four constructs which included goal
33
34 orientation, task value, self-efficacy, and self-regulation. The researchers reported
35
36
37 evidence for strong construct validity of the scales, by testing them on Australian
38
39 lower secondary students (Velayutham et al., 2011). Another scale designated as the
40
41 “High School Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale” was developed and validated by Aydin
42
43
44 and Uzuntiryaki (2009) in order to measure Turkish high school students’ self-
45
46 efficacy from the perspectives of cognitive and laboratory competencies.
47
48 Glynn and his colleagues focused on those motivational components/constructs that
49
50
51 influence self-regulatory learning to develop and validate the Science Motivation
52
53 Questionnaire II (SMQ II) (Glynn and Koballa, 2006; Glynn et al., 2007; 2009;
54
55
56
2011). According to the developers, the items of SMQ II were designed to serve as
57
58 empirical indicators of components of students’ motivation to learn science in college
59
60 courses. The following five motivation components (scales) are included in the final
13

1
2
3
version of SMQ II (Glynn et al., 2011), each one comprised of 5 items, and constitute
4
5
6 the working model of motivation in the present work as well: intrinsic motivation,
7
8 self-determination, self-efficacy, career motivation, and grade motivation. The scales
9
10
11
were found to be useful in assessing the motivation of both science and non-science
12
13 majors. The motivation scales of SMQ II were shown to be positively related, with
14
15 intrinsic and career motivation exhibiting the strongest relation. In addition, the scales
16
17
18 were shown to be related with students’ marks, with strongest relation exhibited by
19
20 self-efficacy.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 The Present Study
28
29
30
In regard with research on motivation in school settings, most investigations have
31
32 been conducted in the mathematics and science domains. Moreover, the majority of
33
34 these studies have been undertaken with college students. Therefore, both from an
35
36
37 academic as well as from a practical point of view (eg. for use in the educational
38
39 policy decision making process), it is important to investigate the motivation of
40
41 secondary school students to learn science and particularly chemistry. In addition,
42
43
44 there is a need to accurately examine how the motivational constructs might be
45
46 moderated by different cultural/educational contexts. The availability of valid
47
48 instruments for measuring motivation is a vital necessary requirement in order to
49
50
51 engage in such a demanding research task. Hence, we anticipate that the investigation
52
53 of motivation to learn chemistry among Greek secondary school students will provide
54
55
56
a valuable contribution to various aspects of research related with motivation. Finally,
57
58 it is important to note that in Greece there has been so far no systematic study which
59
60 aims directly at measuring students’ motivation to learn chemistry. A measurement of
14

1
2
3
upper secondary school students’ attitudes toward chemistry reveals a neutral attitude
4
5
6 regarding the interest and a negative attitude regarding the usefulness of the chemistry
7
8 course to their future career. Only few students (about 4%) express the wish to study
9
10
11
chemistry at University (Salta and Tzougraki, 2004). These neutral and negative
12
13 attitudes are indices of a low motivation to study and learn chemistry (Koballa and
14
15 Glynn, 2007). Taking into account the considerations noted above, we decided to
16
17
18 investigate Greek secondary school students’ motivation to learn chemistry using a
19
20 translation and adaptation of SMQ II (Glynn et al., 2011) in the domain of chemistry.
21
22 This instrument was selected due to its psychometric features and wide usage.
23
24
25 Particularly, SMQ II combines a number of key motivational components in a single
26
27 scale consisted of five subscales, one for each construct, with strong experimental
28
29
30
evidence for their validity (Glynn et al., 2011). Questionnaire validity is an issue of
31
32 central importance which is however seldom examined and/or established.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Method
40
41
42 The context
43
44
45 The interpretation of the results of a motivational study is related to the context of the
46
47 existing curriculum. Thus, in this section a short description of the Greek chemistry
48
49
curriculum is given. Greek secondary school includes three years of lower (junior)
50
51
52 and three years of upper (senior) secondary school. The curricula for secondary
53
54 school are structured in six grades; 7th, 8th, 9th for lower and 10th, 11th, 12th for upper
55
56
57
secondary school respectively. Secondary school science curricula are centralized. All
58
59 schools throughout the country must follow a particular sequence of science courses
60
and use the same educational materials authorized by the Ministry of Education.
15

1
2
3
Table 1 demonstrates the weekly distribution of teaching hours for Science subjects in
4
5
6 Greek secondary schools. A number of 1-hour laboratory activities are included in
7
8 Science Curricula. Table 2 demonstrates the distribution of laboratory activities for
9
10
11
Science subjects in Greek secondary school.
12
13
Table 1:Weekly distribution of teaching hours for Science subjects in Greek
14
15 secondary school
16
17 Weekly teaching hours per grade
18 Lower secondary school Upper secondary school
19 Grades 7 8 9 10 11 12
20
Compulsory subjects
21
22 Biology 2 - 2 1 1 1
23 Chemistry - 1 1 2 2 -
24 Geography 2 2 - - - -
25 Physics - 2 2 3 2 1
26 Optional subjects
27
Biology - - - - - 2
28
29 Chemistry - - - - 2 2
30 Physics - - - - 2 3
31 Total hours per grade 35 35 35 33 34 30
32
33
34
35 Table 2: Annual distribution of 1-hour laboratory activities for Science subjects in
36
37 Greek secondary school
38
Annual distribution of 1-hour laboratory activities per
39
40
grade
41 Lower secondary school Upper secondary school
42 Grades 7 8 9 10 11 12
43 Compulsory subjects
44 Biology 5 - 6 3 3 2
45 Chemistry - 4 3 2 3 -
46
Physics - 7 9 5 4 1
47
48 Optional subjects
49 Biology - - - - - 2
50 Chemistry - - - - 3 3
51 Physics - - - - 3 3
52 Total lab activities per grade 5 11 18 10 10-16 3-11
53
54
55
56 The subject of chemistry is obligatory in grades 8 to 11 (core chemistry courses), and
57
58 optional in the 12thgrade (advanced chemistry course), depending on the direction of
59
60
studies chosen by the student. At grades 8 and 9, the chemistry curriculum follows a
16

1
2
3
macroscopic to microscopic approach. This approach refers to instructional methods
4
5
6 that use examples of real-world or demonstrations to introduce chemistry topics
7
8 followed by microscopic explanations using two-dimensional drawings of dots and
9
10
11
circles to represent atoms, ions, and molecules (Gabel, 1999). At grades 10 to 12, the
12
13 chemistry curriculum, both in core and advanced courses, emphasizes a linear
14
15 development of chemical concepts. This refers to instructional methods that start from
16
17
18 subjects that introduce first basic theoretical concepts of atomic theory and bonding
19
20 on the microscopic level and proceed to subjects focusing on the macroscopic level
21
22 (Gabel, 1999). One of the chemistry curriculum objectives is the ability of students to
23
24
25 solve algorithmic chemistry exercises and problems.
26
27
28
29
30 Participants
31
32 The study was conducted in 4 urban public secondary schools located in the
33
34
35 metropolitan area of the Greek capital, Athens. The participants were 330 secondary
36
37 school students (163 males and 167 females) in grade 8 (n=146), and in grade 10
38
39
(n=184). The lower secondary school students (grade 8) were 14-15 years old and the
40
41
42 upper secondary school students (grade 10) were 16-17 years old. Most students in the
43
44 sample were of middle socioeconomic status. The students participated voluntarily
45
46
47
without extra credit or compensation for their participation. The students and their
48
49 parents were informed about the aim of this study.
50
51
52
53
54 Questionnaire Translation and Adaptation
55
56 The Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire II (CMQ II) is the chemistry specific SMQ
57
58 II version in which the word “chemistry” is substituted for the word “science”. SMQ
59
60
II was selected for the following reasons: (a) it is based on a widely accepted
17

1
2
3
theoretical formulation of motivational constructs; (b) it functionalizes the
4
5
6 motivational construct with a range of indicators, and (c) it demonstrates various
7
8 psychometric properties which render it acceptable. The translation and adaptation
9
10
11
process was conducted by taking into account the Hambleton comments on
12
13 International Test Commission (ITC) guidelines for test translation and adaptation
14
15 (Hambleton, 2001).
16
17
18 A team of three translators working independently to translate and adapt the test was
19
20 used. Scoring rubrics and instructions were also translated in the Greek language. The
21
22 translators have knowledge of both languages. Knowledge of the cultures, and at least
23
24
25 general knowledge of the subject matter and testing principles, made part of the
26
27 selection criteria for translators. One of translators, the second author, is a science
28
29
30
researcher who has lived for five years in USA during his doctoral studies, and he
31
32 now lives and works in Greece. Consequently, he is familiar with the source and the
33
34 target culture, and the concept of interest. The second translator is a science teacher
35
36
37 with over twenty years experience in teaching science subjects at Greek secondary
38
39 school and thus he is familiar with the culture of the population that will be studied.
40
41 Finally, the third translator is the first author, a chemistry educator, familiar both with
42
43
44 the concept of interest and with literature on questionnaire development. A
45
46 professional English language teacher (a native Greek with postgraduate studies in the
47
48 UK) was also used as back translator.
49
50
51 Prior to translation, the translators met to clarify the definitions and indicators of the
52
53 concepts examined by the selected questionnaire in order to promote understanding of
54
55
56
meanings and hence facilitate translation. Each team member first made an
57
58 independent translation of the questionnaire. During forward translation, the
59
60 translators focused on the meaning of the items rather than on literal word-for-word
18

1
2
3
translation. After individual translations were made, the team members met in order to
4
5
6 review the translated version, discuss the discrepancies, and decide on the most
7
8 appropriate translation of the items. In the next phase, the back translation from the
9
10
11
target language into the source language was used in order to identify problems with
12
13 the forward translation. The team of translators then reviewed the back translation for
14
15 comparability of meaning with the target language and clarity of wording. Although
16
17
18 Hambleton (2001) states that a back translation provides little evidence of
19
20 measurement equivalence, in our case it was used to assure that the content and
21
22 meaning of the original items, instructions and response categories are the same as the
23
24
25 original. The last phase of the instrument preparation dealt with pre-testing the
26
27 translated questionnaire for comprehension and cultural validity. Five 10th grade
28
29
30
students completed the Greek version of CMQ II. The first author engaged the
31
32 students in a discussion to determine clarity of the items using questions such as
33
34 “What does the item mean?”, and “Was this an item you felt comfortable
35
36
37 responding?” The content of the discussion with the students was analyzed and a few
38
39 necessary changes were made to items by taking into account the students’
40
41 suggestions. In fact, a need of altering the wording of an item came to light. The
42
43
44 chemistry laboratory activities in Greek high school are considered complementary
45
46 without requiring both preparation of students and separate examinations or exam
47
48 questions. Consequently, the second part “…and labs” of item 16 “I prepare well for
49
50
51 science tests and labs” was considered not applicable for use in the Greek secondary
52
53 school context and it was deleted. This action does not create any problem in the
54
55
56
scoring procedure.
57
58 The end product of the translation and adaptation work is the Greek version of the
59
60 Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire II (CMQ II). This version is available on line
19

1
2
3
(http://www.coe.uga.edu/assets/docs/outreach/smqii/SMQII-Translations.pdf) in the
4
5
6 form of Science Motivation Questionnaire II (Greek-SMQ II) applicable to all science
7
8 disciplines. The team of translators attempted to find a balance between a literal and a
9
10
11
culturally specific translation so that the translation and adaptation of items are
12
13 appropriate for Greek secondary school students. Hence, the questionnaire in the
14
15 target language was finalized and subjected to further testing of psychometric
16
17
18 properties.
19
20
21
22 Procedure
23
24
25 The questionnaire was administered to students in their chemistry classes by their
26
27 chemistry teacher during March and April of school year 2012–2013. Students were
28
29
30
informed about the study and they consented to participate. Their responses to all
31
32 motivation statements were assessed using a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never)
33
34 to 4 (always).
35
36
37 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was selected as the procedure for statistical
38
39 analysis since the present study aims to test the hypothesized motivational
40
41 structure/model proposed by Glynn (2011) for students’ motivation to learn
42
43
44 chemistry. In contrast to Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) that may be appropriate
45
46 for scale development, CFA is preferred when measurement models have strong
47
48 hypothesis regarding the number of latent variables in a model (Usher and Pajares,
49
50
51 2009). Moreover, CFA provides a rigorous test of equivalence across the groups. If
52
53 the assumption of equivalence is rejected, then EFA may be employed to discover
54
55
56
where the anomalies are in the database (Hurley et al., 1997).
57
58 The factors of the model correspond to the scales of related items identified by Glynn
59
60 et al. (2011) that were hypothesized to represent the components of students’
20

1
2
3
motivation to learn chemistry. Adopting a componential model of motivation based
4
5
6 on the social cognitive theory, we hypothesized that (a) the students’ responses to the
7
8 questionnaire can be predicted by the five specified components; (b) the components
9
10
11
are related because they measure positive, mutually supporting components of the
12
13 motivation. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the Structural Equation
14
15 Modeling (SEM) software program AMOS, Version 21.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Results
23
24
25 Model Specification
26
27 The five-factor model for the SMQ II proposed by Glynn and his colleagues (2011)
28
29
30
was validated for the chemistry domain and for Greek high school students. The
31
32 model included five latent (unobserved) variables (factors) : intrinsic motivation (IM),
33
34 self-determination (SD), self-efficacy (SE), career motivation (CM), and grade
35
36
37 motivation (GM). CFA was conducted in a manner that each latent variable (factor)
38
39 was “observed” via its specific set of five items (measured variable indicators).
40
41 Summarizing, the model to be confirmed contains 25 measured variables.
42
43
44 Specifically, the factor intrinsic motivation (IM) predicts the students’ responses to
45
46 items 01, 03, 12, 17, and 19; the factor self-determination (SD) predicts the students’
47
48 responses to items 05, 06, 11, 16, and 22; the factor self-efficacy (SE) predicts the
49
50
51 students’ responses to items 09, 14, 15, 18, and 21; the factor career motivation (CM)
52
53 predicts the students’ responses to items 07, 10, 13, 23, and 25; and the factor grade
54
55
56
motivation (GM) predicts the students’ responses to items 02, 04, 08, 20, and 24. It is
57
58 also necessary to confirm that the motivational factors may be intercorrelated.
59
60 Therefore, the factors were permitted to covary. Error terms were hypothesized to be
21

1
2
3
uncorrelated. In each model the first item loading was constrained to 1.0 to set the
4
5
6 scale of measurement, and no items were allowed to double load.
7
8
9
10
11
Model identification
12
13 A model is characterized as “identified” when “it is theoretically possible for the
14
15 computer to derive a unique estimate of every model parameter” (Kline, 2011). For
16
17
18 testing model identification, the first step is to count the number of data points and the
19
20 number of parameters that need to be estimated. The model to be confirmed has 265
21
22 fewer parameters than data points, so the model may be identified in accordance with
23
24
25 the required condition. Subsequently, the identifiability of the measurement portion of
26
27 the model is established by examining the number of factors and measured variables
28
29
30
as well as the error correlations and factor covariances (Kline, 2011). It is thus noted
31
32 that in the testing model, there are five indicators for each factor. The errors are
33
34 uncorrelated and each indicator loads on only one factor. In addition, the covariances
35
36
37 between the factors are not zero. Therefore, this CFA model may be identified (Kline,
38
39 2011).
40
41
42
43
44 Model estimation
45
46 The model estimation starts with the evaluation of model fit which means the
47
48 determination of how well the model explains the data. Assuming satisfactory model
49
50
51 fit, the interpretation of the parameter estimates can take place (Kline, 2011). Multiple
52
53 well-established indices and criteria were used to assess the goodness of model fit,
54
55
56
because each given index evaluates only particular aspects of the model fit (Byrne,
57
58 2010; Kline, 2011). The analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood (ML)
59
60 estimation.
22

1
2
3
The test of our hypothesis that the Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire (CMQ II)
4
5
6 responses can be explained by five factors, yielded a χ2 value of 569.31 with 265
7
8 degrees of freedom and a probability of less than 0.001 (p<0.001), thereby suggesting
9
10
11
that the fit of the data to the hypothesized model is not entirely adequate (Byrne
12
13 2010). One of the chi squared test limitations, namely the sensitivity of χ2 value to
14
15 sample size, is a reason to consider that it may be a poor index of the quality of the fit
16
17
18 when sample sizes are large (Hu et al., 1992). The test of χ2/df ratio was proposed to
19
20 address this problem (Byrne, 2010). The obtained value of 2.15 for the χ2/df ratio is
21
22 considered a good fit of our hypothesized model to the data since it falls within the
23
24
25 recommended range of 1.0 – 3.0 (Glynn et al., 2011).
26
27 The following four additional fit indexes, which are among the most widely reported
28
29
30
in the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) literature, were also selected to determine
31
32 model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2011): the Steiger–Lind Root Mean Square
33
34 Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Jöreskog–Sörbom Goodness of Fit Index
35
36
37 (GFI), the Bentler Comparative Fix Index (CFI), and the Standardized Root Mean
38
39 Square Residual (SRMR).
40
41 The first index, RMSEA, assesses a lack of fit of the population data to the estimated
42
43
44 model and Hu and Bentler (1999) have suggested a value less than 0.06 as indicative
45
46 of a good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. Moreover,
47
48 MacCallum et al., (1996) strongly urged the use of confidence interval in practice,
49
50
51 suggesting a very narrow confidence interval as supporting for good precision of the
52
53 RMSEA value in reflecting a model fit in the population. The RMSEA value for our
54
55
56
hypothesized model is 0.06, with the 90% confidence interval ranging from 0.05 to
57
58 0.07. This indicates that we can be 90% confident that the true RMSEA value in the
59
60
23

1
2
3
population will fall within the bounds of 0.05 and 0.07, which represents a good
4
5
6 degree of precision (Byrne, 2010).
7
8 The second index, GFI, is an alternative to the Chi-Square test and calculates a
9
10
11
weighted proportion of variance in the sample covariance accounted for by the
12
13 estimated population covariance matrix (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000). A GFI value
14
15 of 0.90 or higher indicates a good model fit. Although the GFI value for our
16
17
18 hypothesized model (0.88) is slightly lower than the threshold level, it is generally
19
20 perceived as “acceptable” for other indices of fit (Byrne, 2010).
21
22 The third index, CFI, takes into account sample size (Byrne, 2010) and performs well
23
24
25 even in small samples (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000). A value greater than 0.90 is
26
27 needed in order to ensure that models are accepted, with values close to 0.95
28
29
30
indicating superior fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The CFI value for our hypothesized
31
32 model (0.91) is indicative of good fit.
33
34 The last index, SRMR, is a measure of the mean absolute correlation residual, the
35
36
37 overall difference between the observed and predicted correlations. Small values of
38
39 SRMR (less than 0.05) indicate good-fitting models (Byrne, 2010), however values as
40
41 high as 0.08 are deemed acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The SRMR value of our
42
43
44 hypothesized model, equal to 0.06, can be interpreted as meaning that the model
45
46 explains the correlations to within an average error of 0.06 (Byrne, 2010). As
47
48 mentioned above, the model chi-square is statistically significant, so the exact-fit
49
50
51 hypothesis is rejected; however the values of the other four used fit indices indicate
52
53 that our hypothesized model fits the data well, providing evidence of questionnaire
54
55
56
construct validity.
57
58 To examine measurement invariance across different groups, successive multi-group
59
60 CFAs were conducted (Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). Factorial invariance tests were
24

1
2
3
done in hierarchical fashion by conducting initially the most basic form of
4
5
6 measurement invariance that is configural invariance or equal form invariance (Model
7
8 1). If configural invariance is confirmed, this indicates that participants belonging to
9
10
11
different groups conceptualize the constructs in the same way. A stronger form of
12
13 measurement invariance is construct-level metric invariance or equal factor loadings
14
15 (Model 2), which means that the unstandardized factor loadings of each indicator are
16
17
18 equal across the groups. Metric invariance is important as a prerequisite for
19
20 meaningful cross-group comparison (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002). When metric
21
22 invariance is met, the suggestion is that different groups respond to the items in the
23
24
25 same way. Subsequently, constraints to factor loadings and item intercepts are
26
27 imposed in order to test for scalar or strong invariance (Model 3). Establishing scalar
28
29
30
invariance indicates that individuals who have the same score on the latent construct
31
32 would obtain the same score on the observed variable regardless of their group
33
34 membership. A value of ΔCFI smaller than or equal to 0.01 indicates that the null
35
36
37 hypothesis of invariance should not be rejected (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002) and it is
38
39 indicative of model invariance.
40
41 Recall that CFAs were conducted on increasingly-restrictive hierarchical
42
43
44 measurement models for each of the two subgroups of interest: gender and age. To
45
46 assess how well the CFA models represented the data, the following criteria were
47
48 used as cut-offs for good fit: CFI >0.90 (with >0.95 being ideal), RMSEA and SRMR
49
50
51 <0.08 (with <0.05 being ideal) (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Because the measurement
52
53 model showed a modestly good fit for all four subgroups namely girls, boys, lower,
54
55
56
and upper secondary school students, (Table 3), we specified the same model for each
57
58 subgroup when testing for factorial invariance.
59
60
25

1
2
3
Table 3: Summary of Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for the Chemistry Motivation
4
5 Questionnaire IIMeasurement Model by Subgroup
6
7 SubgroupModel χ2 df χ2/df CFI RMSEA SRMR
8 Girls 499.43 265 1.89 .86 .07 (.06-.08) .07
9 Boys 444.16 265 1.68 .90 .06 (.05-.07) .07
10
11
12 Lower Secondary 456.79 265 1.72 .84 .07 (.06-.08) .07
13 Upper Secondary 474.00 265 1.79 .91 .07 (.06-.08) .07
14
15 Total 569.31 265 2.15 .91 .06 (.05-.07) .06
16
17
18
19 Multiple groups modeling started with testing for configural invariance. As Table 4
20
21 shows, the model gave a modestly good fit with the data supporting the configural
22
23
validity across gender and different age groups. With regard to metric invariance, the
24
25
26 results revealed that the model fits the data very well across gender and different age
27
28 groups.
29
30
31 Table 4: Tests for Invariance of the Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire
32
33 IIMeasurement Model across Gender and Age
34
Model
35 Model χ2 df χ2/df CFI RMSEA (90% CI)
comparison
ΔCFI
36
37 Boys vs Girls
38 Model 1 (no constrains) 943.588 530 1.780 .88 .049 (.044-.054)
39 Model 2 (equal factor loadings) 959.826 550 1.745 .88 .048 (.043-.053) 2vs1 .000
40 Model 3 (equal intercepts) 976.345 565 1.728 .88 .047 (.042-.052) 3vs2 .000
41
42
Lower vs Upper Secondary
43
44 Model 1 (no constrains) 930.788 530 1.756 .89 .048 (.043-.053)
45 Model 2 (equal factor loadings) 952.122 550 1.731 .89 .047 (.042-.052) 2vs1 .000
46 Model 3 (equal intercepts) 972.279 565 1.721 .89 .047 (.042-.052) 3vs2 .000
47
48
49 Furthermore, this additional set of constraints did not lead to a meaningful drop in fit
50
51
52
(ΔCFI =0.000) between Model 2 and Model 1, providing support for metric
53
54 invariance across gender and age groups. Subsequently, scalar invariance was
55
56 investigated. The overall goodness-of-fit indices and ΔCFI value between Model 3
57
58
59 and Model 2 across gender and age groups supported scalar invariance. Although the
60
CFI values for all CFA models are slightly lower than the threshold level, they are
26

1
2
3
generally perceived as “acceptable” for other indices of fit. Statisticians (Byrne, 2010)
4
5
6 frequently point out that fit indexes can only describe a model’s ‘‘lack of fit” (p. 84)
7
8 and that the judgment of a model’s adequacy ‘‘rests squarely on the shoulders of the
9
10
11
researcher”. With this in mind and based on the majority of the evaluated indexes, we
12
13 have strong evidence that: (a) participants belonging to different groups conceptualize
14
15 the constructs in the same way (configural invariance); (b) different groups respond to
16
17
18 the items in the same way (metric invariance); (c) individuals who have the same
19
20 score on the latent construct would obtain the same score on the observed variable
21
22 regardless of their group membership (scalar invariance). Thus, cross-group
23
24
25 comparisons are plausible as well.
26
27 Table 5 lists each item in the Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire II along with its
28
29
30
standardized loading estimate for each of the five measurement factors.
31
32 Table 5: Standardized Factor Loadings
33
34
35 CMQ II
36 Item Factor Loading Statement
37 Number
38 Lower Upper
39 Total Boys Girls
Secondary Secondary
40
41 Factor:Grade motivation
42 24 .78 .79 .79 .76 .77 Scoring high on chemistry tests and labs matters to me
43 4 .76 .69 .84 .68 .80 Getting a good chemistry grade is important to me
44
8 .75 .78 .71 .79 .72 It is important that I get an ‘‘A’’ in chemistry
45
46 20 .67 .66 .70 .58 .71 I think about the grade I will get in chemistry
47 2 .57 .52 .60 .53 .60 I like to do better than other students on chemistry tests
48 Factor:Self- efficacy
49
15 .80 .82 .78 .75 .84 I believe I can master chemistry knowledge and skills
50
51 9 .79 .77 .81 .72 .83 I am confident I will do well on chemistry tests
52 18 .70 .77 .60 .66 .73 I believe I can earn a grade of ‘‘A’’ in chemistry
53 I am confident I will do well on chemistry labs and
14 .64 .60 .70 .61 .66
54 projects
55 21 .56 .62 .51 .49 .62 I am sure I can understand chemistry
56 Factor:Self-determination
57
58 22 .74 .75 .72 .69 .78 I study hard to learn chemistry
59 11 .70 .70 .69 .70 .71 I spend a lot of time learning chemistry
60 16 .60 .60 .60 .66 .56 I prepare well for chemistry tests
5 .60 .63 52 .50 .66 I put enough effort into learning chemistry
27

1
2
3
CMQ II
4 Factor Loading Statement
Item
5
6 Number
7 Total Boys Girls Lower Upper
8 Secondary Secondary
9 6 .56 .58 .49 .52 .59 I use strategies to learn chemistry well
10 Factor:Career motivation
11
12 13 .78 .79 .75 .66 .86 Understanding chemistry will benefit me in my career
13 23 .78 .79 .76 .79 .80 My career will involve chemistry
14 I will use chemistry problem-solving skills in my
25 .73 .73 .75 .73 .77
15 career
16 7 .72 .67 .72 .50 .83 Learning chemistry will help me get a good job
17 10 .69 .66 .76 .58 .74 Knowing chemistry will give me a career advantage
18 Factor:Intrinsic motivation
19
20 19 .80 .78 .81 .75 .84 I enjoy learning chemistry
21 12 .71 .69 .72 .67 .74 Learning chemistry makes my life more meaningful
22 17 .67 .71 .61 .58 .73 I am curious about discoveries in chemistry
23 3 .66 .65 .65 .55 .75 Learning chemistry is interesting
24 The chemistry I learn is relevant to my life
1 .48 .55 .36 .34 .59
25
26
27
28
29
30 The factor loadings are estimated correlations often referred to as validity coefficients,
31
32 which indicate how well a given item measures its corresponding factor. In all
33
34
35
analyses, the standardized factor loadings were significant at the p=0.05 level and all,
36
37 except one which is equal to 0.34 for the lower secondary group (shown in bold),
38
39 displayed magnitude in the range between 0.86 and 0.48, and therefore exceed the
40
41
42 factor-loading criterion of 0.35 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000).
43
44 The standardized correlations among the factors shown in Table 6 are considered
45
46 corrected (i.e., disattenuated) for measurement error and thus may be viewed as
47
48
49 representing the true associations among the motivation components represented by
50
51 the factors.
52
53
54 Table 6: Standardized Factor Correlations for all groups
55
56
57 Grade motivation Self-efficacy Self-determination Career motivation
58 T* B* G* L* U* T* B* G* L* U* T* B* G* L* U* T* B* G* L* U*
59
60 GM
28

1
2
3
4 Grade motivation Self-efficacy Self-determination Career motivation
5
SE .66 .65 .65 .59 .77
6
7
8 SD .56 .60 .53 .52 .60 .45 .51 .41 .40 .49
9
10 CM .48 .53 .40 .40 .52 .54 .66 .41 .48 .58 .37 .47 .23 .46 .32
11
12 .48 .47 .49 .44 .53 .57 .58 .59 .57 .58 .53 .56 .46 .53 .53 .70 .69 .69 .72 .67
IM
13
14 Note: Minimum and maximum values are shown in bold
15 * T: Total, B: Boys, G: Girls, L: Lower secondary, U: Upper Secondary
16
17
18
19
20
The five factors showed statistically significant intercorrelations ranging in magnitude
21
22 from 0.23 (between career motivation and self-determination for girls) to 0.77
23
24 (between grade motivation and self-efficacy for upper secondary students).
25
26
27 A thorough psychometric evaluation also includes some form of reliability evidence.
28
29 The reliabilities (internal consistencies) of the subscales for the all groups, assessed
30
31 by Cronbach’s alphas, are presented in Table 7.
32
33
34 Table 7:Reliability of internal consistencies
35
36
37
38 Reliability of internal consistencies
39
40 Lower Upper
Total Boys Girls
41 secondary secondary
(n=330) (n=163) (n=167)
42 (n=146) (n=184)
43 GM .82 .81 .84 .79 .83
44
45 SE .82 .84 .80 .78 .85
46 .77 .78 .73 .75 .79
47 SD
48 CM .86 .85 .86 .79 .90
49
50 IM .80 .81 .76 .71 .85
51 All items .91 .92 .90 .88 .93
52
53
54
55
56
The values of Cronbach’s alpha of the five factors ranged in magnitude from 0.71
57
58 (intrinsic motivation for lower secondary school students) to 0.90 (career motivation
59
60 for upper secondary school students). According to DeVellis (2003), a coefficient
29

1
2
3
above 0.80 is ‘‘very good,’’ 0.70 to 0.80 is ‘‘respectable,’’ 0.60 to 0.69 is
4
5
6 ‘‘undesirable to minimally acceptable,’’ and below 0.60 is ‘‘unacceptable.’’ The
7
8 Cronbach’s alpha values of all 25 items ranged from 0.88 (lower secondary school
9
10
11
students) to0.93 (upper secondary school students). Analogous values of coefficients
12
13 were reported by Glynn et al. (2011) for the scales of SMQ II.
14
15 Boys and girls as well lower and upper secondary school students were compared on
16
17
18 their motivation components using the mean factor-based scale scores (Table 8). We
19
20 adopted the factor-based scale scores instead of the estimated factor scores because
21
22 the former are more easily interpreted and can also be used for comparison between
23
24
25 studies (Glynn et al., 2011). A two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine
26
27 possible differences in students' mean scores on the scales of CMQ II according to
28
29
30
age (lower secondary school and upper secondary school), gender (boys and girls),
31
32 and the interaction of these variables.
33
34 The ANOVA results revealed a significant main effect of students' age on their grade
35
36
37 motivation scores, F(1, 326)=9.242, p<0.05. Moreover, there were significant main
38
39 effects of students’ gender on their self-determination scores, F(1, 326)= 13.108,
40
41 p<0.001, their career motivation scores, F(1, 326)= 6.209, p<0.05, and the intrinsic
42
43
44 motivation scores, F(1, 326)= 15.077, p<0.001. Nevertheless, no significant
45
46 interactions (p > 0.05) were observed between age and gender for any of the students'
47
48 scores on the scales of CMQ II. This actually means that the effect of the students’
49
50
51 age on their grade motivation scores is fairly similar for male and female students.Τhe
52
53 effect of gender on self-determination, career motivation, and intrinsic motivation
54
55
56
scores is also similar for lower and upper secondary students.
57
58 Table 8: Descriptive statistics of CMQ II scales among boys and girls students in
59
60 lower and upper secondary school.
30

1
2
3
Lower secondary Upper Secondary
4
5 Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
6 (n=67) (n=79) (n=146) (n=96) (n=88) (n=184)
7
Grade motivation (min=0, max=20)
8
9 M 14.69 15.32 15.03 13.34 13.73 13.53
10
11 sd 4.01 4.06 4.03 4.81 4.30 4.56
12
13 Self-efficacy (min=0, max=20)
14
M 11.90 11.71 11.80 12.81 12.53 12.68
15
16 sd 4.42 3.44 3.91 4.21 3.86 4.04
17
18 Self-determination (min=0, max=20)
19
20 M 9.87 11.30 10.64 9.66 11.28 10.43
21
22 sd 4.09 3.69 3.93 4.02 3.45 3.84
23 Career motivation (min=0, max=20)
24
25 M 8.33 10.15 9.32 8.76 9.65 9.19
26
27 sd 4.53 4.21 4.44 5.15 5.42 5.29
28
29 Intrinsic motivation (min=1, max=20)
30 M 11.08 13.30 12.28 11.53 12.73 12.10
31
32 sd 3.92 3.37 3.79 4.44 3.96 4.25
33
34 Note: The results of the factors that showed statistically significant differences
35 areshown in bold
36
37
38
39 The mean factor-based scale scores are shown in Table 8. Examination of the means
40
41 in Table 8 and the results of ANOVA show that lower secondary school students have
42
43
44
significantly higher scores on grade motivation than students in upper secondary
45
46 school. In regard with gender, statistical analysis indicates the following: a) Girls in
47
48 lower secondary school have significantly higher scores on self-determination, career
49
50
51 motivation and intrinsic motivation relative to boys of the same age, b) Girls in upper
52
53 secondary school have statistically significant higher score in self-determination
54
55 relative to boys of the same age.
56
57
58
59
60
31

1
2
3
Discussion
4
5
6 Validity and reliability of quantitative measurements are the two most important
7
8 aspects of educational research. Although the use of existing instruments is
9
10
11
convenient, these instruments should not be used without sufficient evidence of their
12
13 ability to produce valid and reliable scores in the desired context. Only if the
14
15 instruments’ scores are valid and reliable they can result to valid interpretations, and
16
17
18 can lead to potentially gainful decisions for students as well as for educational
19
20 researchers and policy makers. Consequently, access to valid instruments is crucial
21
22 for researchers conducting quantitative research in chemistry education.
23
24
25 Thus the first main contribution of this work is the provision of solid experimental
26
27 evidence for the validity and reliability of the SMQ II instrument, originally
28
29
30
developed for measuring motivation among college students in USA (Glynn et al.,
31
32 2011), in a specific science subject (Chemistry) a different cultural context (Greece)
33
34 and in students belonging to a younger age group (14-17 y) and a different
35
36
37 educational level (secondary school). This opens the possibility for reliable
38
39 measurement of students’ motivation within the Greek cultural context for the first
40
41 time and in addition for reliable cross-cultural comparisons of students’ motivation
42
43
44 via the use of the same valid instrument. The second main contribution of this work is
45
46 the investigation of Greek secondary school students’ motivation to learn chemistry
47
48 for the first time.
49
50
51 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to test the hypothesized motivational
52
53 structure proposed by Glynn et al.(2011) for students’ motivation to learn chemistry,
54
55
56
for the Greek version of the chemistry-specific original questionnaire (Greek-CMQ
57
58 II). It is important to note that CFA was employed not only in order to verify whether
59
60 the original factor structure could be validated, but also in order to examine whether
32

1
2
3
the measurement structure underlying motivation to learn chemistry is equivalent
4
5
6 within the (sub)groups corresponding to gender and age. In previous studies,
7
8 comparisons between group means were made based on the assumption that the
9
10
11
measures of motivation are fully applicable within the specific groups as well. In our
12
13 study, we first used multi-group CFA in order to confirm that the measures are
14
15 invariant within groups and subsequently conducted comparisons between these
16
17
18 groups (Byrne, 2010; Kline, 2011). The results of statistical analyses provided
19
20 evidence supporting the construct validity of Greek CMQ-II, as well as for configural,
21
22 metric and scalar invariance, thus allowing meaningful comparisons between groups.
23
24
25 Thus the five component model of motivation consisting of grade motivation, career
26
27 motivation, intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and self-determination was also
28
29
30
confirmed for the Greek version of CMQ-II. The scales were positively related,
31
32 consistent with the view that the components were mutually supporting. In particular,
33
34 intrinsic motivation and career motivation were strongly related, suggesting that
35
36
37 intrinsic motivation orientates students to careers that involve chemistry. Self-efficacy
38
39 and grade motivation were also strongly related, supporting that self-efficacy predicts
40
41 students’ performance, in line with previous studies’ findings (Britner, 2008; Schraw
42
43
44 et al., 2005; Taasoobshirazi and Glynn, 2009; Zusho et al., 2003). Although most
45
46 correlations between scales of CMQ II are similar with those of SMQ II (Glynn et al.,
47
48 2011), the correlations between self-efficacy and grade motivation, as well as between
49
50
51 intrinsic motivation and grade motivation are higher. This finding might be
52
53 interpreted by the main idea of self-determination theory that there is not a clear
54
55
56
distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic types of motivation but motivated
57
58 behaviours vary in the degree to which they are autonomous (intrinsically motivated)
59
60 vs. controlled (career or grade motivated) (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The reliabilities
33

1
2
3
(internal consistencies) of the scales of the Greek version of CMQ II for all four
4
5
6 subgroups namely girls, boys, lower, and upper secondary school students, assessed
7
8 by Cronbach’s alpha values, were analogous of those reported by Glynn et al. (2011)
9
10
11
for the scales of SMQ II. Particularly, the reliabilities of the scales for upper
12
13 secondary school students are very similar to those reported by Glynn et al. (2011) for
14
15 college students, suggesting the very good fitness of the scales for these ages.
16
17
18 Our findings suggest that the structure of CMQ II (number of factors and factor-item
19
20 association) is not dependent on gender and age group. In addition, both genders and
21
22 age groups have equal strengths of relations between the underlying constructs and
23
24
25 specific scale items.
26
27 Furthermore, our findings revealed interesting statistically significant differences
28
29
30
between specific means of the CMQ II scales across the genders and the examined
31
32 age groups. More specifically, lower secondary students had higher mean score on
33
34 grade motivation than upper secondary students. In the other four scales, there is no
35
36
37 evidence for statistically significant differences between the two age groups. Previous
38
39 research findings support that most students show a progressive deterioration on
40
41 school-related attitudes and motivation (Gentry et al., 2002; Gottfried et al., 2001;
42
43
44 Wigfield and Eccles, 2002). Our work provides similar evidence only for the
45
46 motivation component related with grade motivation. Although the decline in
47
48 students’ motivation to learn science has been documented and is evidenced by many
49
50
51 science teachers, studies have shown that this decline is not an attribute of
52
53 adolescence, but a result of school and class context (Nolen, 2003; Vedder-Weiss and
54
55
56
Fortus, 2011). A limitation of the present study is the fact that it is based on a cross-
57
58 sectional research design. Cross-sectional samples do not accurately capture true
59
60 intra-person change and preclude assessment of measurement invariance over time
34

1
2
3
and as people age. A longitudinal research design is required in order to address these
4
5
6 concerns.
7
8 In regard with differences between genders, secondary school female students
9
10
11
exhibited higher means than male on self-determination irrespective of age group.
12
13 Furthermore, the female students of the younger age group (lower secondary school)
14
15 had higher means than corresponding male students on two additional motivational
16
17
18 components: career motivation and intrinsic motivation. No significant inter-gender
19
20 differences were found for the grade motivation and self-efficacy component scales.
21
22 The results related with the difference between boys and girls in self-determination
23
24
25 are in line with findings from previous studies (e.g. Cavallo et al., 2004; Glynn et al.,
26
27 2009; 2011). However, our findings contradict those of Glynn et al. (2011) which
28
29
30
indicated that men had higher self-efficacy than women, but are in line with those of
31
32 Britner (2008) which indicate no gender differences in self-efficacy in physical
33
34 science. Concentrating on the comparison of this work with the results of Glynn et al.
35
36
37 (2011), since in both cases measurements were made via the use of equivalent
38
39 instruments (SMQ II and Greek CMQ II), the documented differences concerning the
40
41 inter-gender comparison of motivation could be attributed to several factors (acting
42
43
44 separately or synergistically) such as: a) different age of students, b) different cultural
45
46 context, c) different educational context, d) investigation of a specific science domain
47
48 (chemistry) in our case. Research on gender differences in motivation to learn science
49
50
51 and mathematics (Li, 1999; Tenenbaum and Leaper, 2003) points out that such
52
53 differences are attributed to social influences (eg family, teachers, friends, media)
54
55
56
rather than to natural differences between boys and girls. Such a social influence that
57
58 could possibly justify the herein documented increased motivation of female lower
59
60 and/or upper secondary school students relative to their male classmates with regard
35

1
2
3
to self-determination, career motivation and intrinsic motivation, is the increased ratio
4
5
6 of female vs male chemistry teachers in Greek secondary education. The large
7
8 presence of female chemistry teachers in Greek secondary schools serves as a positive
9
10
11
role model for the female students.
12
13 Elaborating more on the comparison of the total scores of our results with those of
14
15 Glynn et al. (2011), the following main comments can be made:
16
17
18 i) An interesting finding of our work is related with the especially low mean factor-
19
20 based scores of the career motivation scale. As seen in Table 8, the absolute values of
21
22 these scores are the lowest relative to the other four motivation components and
23
24
25 below 10 (in a scale from 0 – 20) for the whole sample (equal to 9.39/20 and 9.19/20
26
27 in the two age groups). These scores are much lower relative to the one of science
28
29
30
majors in USA (that is equal to 15.95/20) which is not a surprising finding since the
31
32 sample of the latter case involves older students who already pursue studies related
33
34 with a career in science. However, the career motivation scores of the Greek students
35
36
37 are also significantly lower relative to the corresponding score of the non-science
38
39 majors in USA (equal to 11.13). Thus, the present study provides a direct
40
41 measurement of the poor motivation of Greek students to pursue a chemistry related
42
43
44 career, a fact which was inferred in the study of Salta et al. (2012).
45
46 ii) With regard to self-determination, the cross-cultural comparison reveals a very
47
48 similar pattern with the one discussed above for career motivation. In fact, Greek
49
50
51 secondary school students have a quite low mean absolute score in self-determination
52
53 (10.64/20 and 10.43/20 in the two age groups) which is much lower from the
54
55
56
corresponding scores of college students in USA (equal to 15.20/20 and 13.61/20 for
57
58 science and non-science majors respectively). This large documented difference in
59
60 self-determination between the two countries could be partly related with the different
36

1
2
3
educational context of the examined student samples. A college learning environment
4
5
6 is often more flexibly structured relative to secondary school. However, the especially
7
8 low self-determination scores of Greek secondary school students could also be linked
9
10
11
to certain features of the Greek chemistry curriculum. In fact, as recently pointed out
12
13 by Greek researchers in science education (Halkia and Mantzouridis, 2005), the
14
15 demanding content of the Greek chemistry curriculum poses major difficulties to the
16
17
18 teachers since it leaves them very little freedom to use other teaching resources apart
19
20 from the provided science textbook. This chemistry curriculum has to be covered in a
21
22 small number of teaching hours (1 or 2 per week depending on grade, see Table 1). In
23
24
25 addition, the possibility for hands-on experimentation is also very limited (2-4 one-
26
27 hour lab experiments per year depending on grade, see Table 2). These structural
28
29
30
characteristics of the Greek educational system are expected to have a detrimental
31
32 effect on Greek secondary school students’ sense of control over their learning
33
34 chemistry (self-determination) as well as in the other components of motivation to
35
36
37 learn chemistry.
38
39 iii) The total mean scores of grade motivation of college students in USA (equal to
40
41 16.96/20 and 16.11/20 for science and non-science) are much higher relative to the
42
43
44 one of upper secondary school Greek students (equal to 13.53/20) and increased also
45
46 relative to the one of Greek lower secondary school students (equal to 15.03/20). This
47
48 difference could be most closely related to the different educational context of the two
49
50
51 student samples. College students (irrespective of major) have already made a
52
53 conscious choice of pursuing higher level studies for getting a tertiary degree while
54
55
56
high school students are not in a position to make specific choices over the courses
57
58 they have to study for getting their secondary education certificate.
59
60
37

1
2
3
iv) With regard to the remaining two motivation components, self-efficacy and
4
5
6 intrinsic motivation, the mean scores displayed by the Greek secondary school
7
8 students are decreased relative to college science majors but quite similar in
9
10
11
magnitude with non-science majors in USA. The increased values for science majors
12
13 are not surprising taking into account the fact that these are students who have already
14
15 chosen a study path related to science. On the other hand, the display of similar self-
16
17
18 efficacy and intrinsic motivational characteristics between students who have
19
20 consciously chosen a non-science major (USA) and secondary education students
21
22 (Greece) may be, among others, related to perceptions most students tend to have
23
24
25 about the nature of the chemistry course irrespective of country of origin.
26
27 Research studies that provide novel empirical and/or theoretical content on a science
28
29
30
education topic in a novel educational context are expected to provide significant
31
32 contributions to scientific knowledge (Taber, 2012). The availability of a valid tool,
33
34 such as the Greek version of Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire II, for exploring
35
36
37 quantitatively the motivation of Greek secondary school students to learn chemistry
38
39 opens several new possibilities for researchers, chemistry educators as well as
40
41 educational policy makers in Greece. Its application to carefully selected student
42
43
44 samples could provide valuable information and feedback which can be employed for
45
46 increasing the effectiveness of chemistry curricula, teaching materials and teaching
47
48 methodologies. Future research should be focused on identifying the elements of
49
50
51 school culture and teacher practices which have the strongest influence on students’
52
53 motivation for chemistry learning as well as their in-between interactions.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 References
38

1
2
3
Ames C., (1992), Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation, J.
4
5
6 Educ. Psychol., 84, 261–271.
7
8 Aydin Y. C. and Uzuntiryaki E., (2009), Development and psychometric
9
10
11
evaluation of the high school chemistry self-efficacy scale, Educ.Psychol. Meas., 69,
12
13 868-880.
14
15 Bandura A., (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: A social
16
17
18 cognitive theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19
20 Bandura A., (2001), Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective, Annu.
21
22 Rev. Psychol., 52, 1 – 26.
23
24
25 Black A.E. and Deci E.L., (2000), The effects of instructors’ autonomy
26
27 support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-
28
29
30
determination theory perspective, Sci. Educ., 84, 740–756.
31
32 Blumenfeld P., (1992), Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and
33
34 expanding goal theory, J. Educ. Psychol., 84, 272–281.
35
36
37 Boekaerts M., (1998), Do culturally rooted self-construals affect students’
38
39 conceptualization of control over learning? Educ. Psychol. US, 33, 87–108.
40
41 Boekaerts M., Pintrich P. R. and Zeidner M. (Eds.), (2000), Handbook of self-
42
43
44 regulation, San Diego: Academic Press.
45
46 Britner S. L., (2008), Motivation in high school science students: A
47
48 comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes, J. Res.
49
50
51 Sci. Teach., 45, 955–970.
52
53 Brophy J., (1983), Conceptualizing student motivation, Educ. Psychol. US, 18,
54
55
56
200-215.
57
58 Brophy J., (2004), Motivating students to learn, (2nd ed.), Mahwah, NJ:
59
60 Erlbaum.
39

1
2
3
Broussard S. C. and Garrison M. E. B., (2004),The relationship between
4
5
6 classroom motivation and academic achievement in elementary school-aged children,
7
8 F. Con. Sci. Res. J., 33, 106–120.
9
10
11
Bryan R. R., Glynn S. M. and Kittleson J. M., (2011), Motivation,
12
13 achievement, and advanced placement intent of high school students learning science,
14
15 Sci. Educ., 95, 1049-1065.
16
17
18 Byrne B. M., (2010), Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic
19
20 concepts, applications, and programming, (2nd ed), NY: Routledge.
21
22 Cavallo A. M. L., Potter W. H. and Rozman M., (2004), Gender differences in
23
24
25 learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course
26
27 achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science
28
29
30
majors, School Sci. Math., 104, 288–300.
31
32 Cheung G. W. and Rensvold R. B., (2002), Evaluating goodness of fit indexes
33
34 for testing measurement invariance, Struct. Equ. Modeling, 9, 233–255.
35
36
37 Choi I., Nisbett R. and Norenzayan A., (1999), Causal attribution across
38
39 cultures: Variation and universality, Psychol. Bull., 125, 47–63.
40
41 Deci E. L., Koestner R. and Ryan R. M., (1999), A meta-analytic review of
42
43
44 experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation,
45
46 Psychol. Bull., 125, 627–668.
47
48 Deci E. and Ryan R., (2000), The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
49
50
51 needs and the self-determination of behaviour, Psychol. Inq., 11, 227–268.
52
53 Dermitzaki I., Stavroussi P., Vavougios D. and Kotsis K.T., (2013),
54
55
56
Adaptation of the Students’ Motivation Towards Science Learning (SMTSL)
57
58 questionnaire in the Greek language, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ., 28, 747-766.
59
60
40

1
2
3
DeVellis R. F., (2003), Scale development: Theory and applications, (2nd
4
5
6 edn.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
7
8 Dole J. A. and Sinatra G. M., (1998), Reconceptualizing change in the
9
10
11
cognitive construction of knowledge, Educ. Psychol. US, 33, 109–128.
12
13 Eccles J. S. and Wigfield A., (2002), Motivational beliefs, values, and goals,
14
15 Annu. Rev. Psychol., 53, 109–132.
16
17
18 Eccles J.S., Simpkins S.D. and Davis-Kean P.E., (2006), Math and science
19
20 motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs, Dev.
21
22 Psychol., 42, 70–83.
23
24
25 Feng S.L. and Tuan H.L., (2005), Using ARCS model to promote 11th
26
27 graders’ motivation and achievement in learning about acids and bases, International
28
29
30
J. Sci. Math. Educ., 3, 463–484.
31
32 Fiske A., Kitayama S., Markus H. and Nisbett R., (1998), The cultural matrix
33
34 of social psychology, in D. Gilbert, S. Fiske and G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
35
36
37 social psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 915–981.
38
39 Gabel D. L., (1999), Improving teaching and learning through chemistry
40
41 education research: A look to the future, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 548–554.
42
43
44 Gentry M., Gable R. and Rizza M., (2002), Students’ perceptions of classroom
45
46 activities: Are there grade-level and gender differences? J. Educ. Psychol., 94, 539–
47
48 544.
49
50
51 Glynn S. M. and Koballa T. R., Jr., (2006), Motivation to learn college
52
53 science, in J. J. Mintzes and W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of college science
54
55
56
teaching, Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press, pp. 25-32.
57
58
59
60
41

1
2
3
Glynn S. M., Taasoobshirazi G. and BrickmanP., (2007), Nonscience majors
4
5
6 learning science: A theoretical model of motivation, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 44, 1088-
7
8 1107.
9
10
11
Glynn S. M., Taasoobshirazi G. and Brickman P., (2009), Science Motivation
12
13 Questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46,
14
15 127–146.
16
17
18 Glynn S. M., Brickman P., Armstrong N. and Taasoobshirazi G., (2011),
19
20 Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience
21
22 majors, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48, 1159-1176.
23
24
25 Gottfried A. E., Fleming J. and Gottfried A. W., (2001), Continuity of
26
27 academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A
28
29
30
longitudinal study, J. Educ. Psychol., 93, 3–13.
31
32 Halkia K. and Mantzouridis D., (2005), Students’ views and attitudes towards
33
34 the communication code used in press articles about science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 27,
35
36
37 1395–1411.
38
39 Hambleton R., (2001), The next generation of the ITC test translation ands
40
41 adaptation guidelines, Eur. J. Psychol. Assess., 17, 164-172.
42
43
44 Hidi S. and Harackiewicz J. M., (2001), Motivating the academically
45
46 unmotivated: a critical issue for the 21st century, Rev. Educ. Res., 70, 151–80.
47
48 Hidi S. and Renninger K. A., (2006), The Four-Phase Model of Interest
49
50
51 Development, Educ. Psychol., 41, 111-127.
52
53 Hu L. and Bentler P. M., (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
54
55
56
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equ.
57
58 Modeling, 6, 1-55.
59
60
42

1
2
3
Hu L., Bentler P. M. and Kano Y., (1992), Can test statistics in covariance
4
5
6 structure analysis be trusted? Psychol. Bull., 112, 351-362.
7
8 Hufton N., Elliott J. and Illushin L., (2002), Achievement motivation across
9
10
11
cultures: Some puzzles and their implications for future research, New Dir. Child
12
13 Adolescent Dev., 96, 65–85.
14
15 Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A.,
16
17
18 Vandenberg, R. J., and Williams, L. J., (1997), Exploratory and confirmatory factor
19
20 analysis: Guidelines, issues, and alternatives, J. Organ. Behav., 18, 667-683.
21
22 Iyengar S. and Lepper M., (1999), Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural
23
24
25 perspective on intrinsic motivation, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 76, 349–366.
26
27 Juriševič M., Glažar S. A., Pučko C. R. and Devetak I., (2008), Intrinsic
28
29
30
motivation of pre-service primary school teachers for learning chemistry in relation to
31
32 their academic achievement, Int. J. Sci.. Educ., 30, 87-107
33
34 Kline R. B., (2011), Principles and practice of structural equation modeling,
35
36
37 (3rded), New York: Guildford Press.
38
39 Koballa T.R., Jr. and Glynn S.M., (2007), Attitudinal and motivational
40
41 constructs in science education, in: S.K. Abell and N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook for
42
43
44 Research in Science Education, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum pp. 75–102.
45
46 Krull D., Loy M., Lin J., Wang C., Chin S. and Zhao X., (1999), The
47
48 fundamental attribution error: Correspondence bias in individualistic and collectivist
49
50
51 cultures, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 25, 1208–1219.
52
53 Lawson A.E., Banks D.L. and Logvin M., (2007), Self-efficacy, reasoning
54
55
56
ability, and achievement in college biology, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 44, 706–724.
57
58 Li Q., (1999), Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A
59
60 review, Educ. Res., 41, 63–76.
43

1
2
3
MacCallum R.C., Browne M.W. and Sugawara H., M., (1996), Power
4
5
6 Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling,
7
8 Psychol. Methods, 1, 130-149.
9
10
11
Mantzicopoulos P., Patrick H. and Samarapungavan A., (2008), Young
12
13 children’s motivational beliefs about learning science, Early Child. Res. Q., 23, 378 –
14
15 394.
16
17
18 Mazlo J., Dormedy D.F., Neimoth-Anderson J.D., Urlacher T., Carson G.A.
19
20 and Kelter P.B., (2002), Assessment of motivational methods in the general chemistry
21
22 laboratory, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 36, 318–321.
23
24
25 McGinnis J.R., Kramer S., Shama G., Graeber A.O., Parker C.A. and
26
27 Watanabe T., (2002), Undergraduates’ attitudes and beliefs about subject matter and
28
29
30
pedagogy measured periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher
31
32 preparation program, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 39, 713–737.
33
34 Murphy P. K. and Alexander P. A., (2000), A Motivated Exploration of
35
36
37 Motivation Terminology, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 25, 3-53.
38
39 Nolen S. B., (2003), Learning environment, motivation, and achievement in
40
41 high school science, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40, 347–368.
42
43
44 Oishi S. and Diener E., (2001), Goals, culture, and subjective well-being,
45
46 Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 27, 1674–1682.
47
48 Pajares F. and Schunk D. H., (2001), Self-beliefs and school success: Self-
49
50
51 efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement, in R. Riding and S. Rayner (Eds.),
52
53 Perception (pp. 239–266). London: Ablex.
54
55
56
Pintrich P. R., (2000), An achievement goal perspective on issues in
57
58 motivation terminology, theory, and research, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 25, 92–104.
59
60
44

1
2
3
Pintrich P. R., (2003),A motivational science perspective on the role of student
4
5
6 motivation in learning and teaching contexts, J. Educ. Psychol., 95, 667 – 686.
7
8 Pintrich P.R., Marx R.W. and Boyle R.A., (1993), Beyond cold conceptual
9
10
11
change: the role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the
12
13 process of conceptual change, Rev. Educ. Res., 63, 167–199.
14
15 Potvin G., Hazari Z., Tai R. H. and Sadler P. M., (2009), Unravelling bias
16
17
18 from student evaluations of their high school science teachers, Sci. Educ., 93, 827 –
19
20 845.
21
22 Renninger K. A., Ewen L. andLasher A. K., (2002), Individual interest as
23
24
25 context in expository text and mathematical word problems, Learn. Instr., 12, 467–
26
27 491.
28
29
30
Ryan R. M. and Deci E., (2000), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic
31
32 definitions and new directions, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 25, 54–67.
33
34 Salta K. and Tzougraki C., (2004), Attitudes toward chemistry among 11th
35
36
37 grade students in high schools in Greece, Sci. Educ., 88, 535-547.
38
39 Salta K., Gekos M., Petsimeri I. and Koulougliotis D., (2012), Discovering
40
41 factors that influence the decision to pursue a chemistry-related career: a comparative
42
43
44 analysis of the experiences of non-scientist adults and chemistry teachers in Greece,
45
46 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 437-446.
47
48 Scherer R., (2013), Further evidence on the structural relationship between
49
50
51 academic self-concept and self-efficacy: On the effects of domain specificity, Learn.
52
53 Individ. Differ., 28, 9-19.
54
55
56
Schiefele U., (1999),Interest and learning from text, Sci. Stud. Read., 3, 257–
57
58 80.
59
60
45

1
2
3
Schraw G., Brooks D.W. and Crippen K.J., (2005), Improving chemistry
4
5
6 teaching using an interactive compensatory model of learning, J. Chem. Educ., 82,
7
8 637–640.
9
10
11
Schunk D.H., Pintrich P.R. and Meece J.L., (2008), Motivation in education:
12
13 Theory, research and application, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey and Columbus,
14
15 Ohio: Pearson.
16
17
18 Scott P., Asoko H. and Leach J., (2007), Student conceptions and conceptual
19
20 learning in science, in S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of
21
22 research on science education, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 31–56.
23
24
25 Taasoobshirazi G. and Glynn S. M., (2009), College students solving
26
27 chemistry problems: A theoretical model of expertise, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46, 1070-
28
29
30
1089.
31
32 Taasoobshirazi G. and Sinatra G. M., (2011), A structural equation model of
33
34 conceptual change in physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48, 901–918.
35
36
37 Tabachnick B.G. and Fidell L.S., (2000), Using Multivariate Statistics, (4th
38
39 ed.), New York: Allyn and Bacon.
40
41 Taber, K. S., (2012), Vive la Différence? Comparing “Like with Like” in
42
43
44 Studies of Learners’ Ideas in Diverse Educational Contexts, Educ. Res. Int., 168741
45
46 Tenenbaum H. and Leaper C., (2003), Parent–child conversations about
47
48 science: The socialization of gender inequities? Dev. Psychol., 39, 34–47.
49
50
51 Tuan H.L., Chin C.C. and Shieh S.H., (2005), The development of a
52
53 questionnaire for assessing students’ motivation toward science learning, Int. J. Sci..
54
55
56
Educ., 27, 639–654.
57
58 Usher E. L. and Pajares F., (2009), Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A
59
60 validation study, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 34, 89-101.
46

1
2
3
Vedder-Weiss D. and Fortus D., (2011), Adolescents' Declining Motivation to
4
5
6 Learn Science: Inevitable or Not? J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48, 199–216.
7
8 Vandenberg R. J. and Lance C. E., (2000), A review and synthesis of the
9
10
11
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for
12
13 organizational research, Organ. Res. Methods, 3, 4–70.
14
15 Velayutham S., Aldridge J. and Fraser B., (2011), Development and validation
16
17
18 of an instrument to measure students' motivation and self-regulation in science
19
20 learning, Int. J. Sci.. Educ., 33, 2159-2179.
21
22 Wigfield A. and Eccles J., (2002), The development of competence beliefs,
23
24
25 expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through
26
27 adolescence,in A. Wigfield and J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement
28
29
30
motivation, San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 91–121.
31
32 Zeyer A., Çetin-Dindar A., Md Zain A. N., Juriševič M., Devetak I., and
33
34 Odermatt F., (2013), Systemizing: A Cross-Cultural Constant for Motivation to Learn
35
36
37 Science. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 50, 1047–1067.
38
39 Zusho A., Pintrich P. R. and Coppola B., (2003), Skill and will: The role of
40
41 motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry, Int. J. Sci.. Educ., 25,
42
43
44 1081-1094.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
47

Chemistry Education Research and Practice: Accepted Manuscript

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Chemistry Education Research and Practice: Accepted Manuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chemistry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

You might also like