Premium
Science Motivation Questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors
Author(s) -
Glynn Shawn M.,
Taasoobshirazi Gita,
Brickman Peggy
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of research in science teaching
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.067
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1098-2736
pISSN - 0022-4308
DOI - 10.1002/tea.20267
Subject(s) - psychology , construct (python library) , science education , mathematics education , likert scale , relevance (law) , exploratory factor analysis , motivation to learn , construct validity , curriculum , intrinsic motivation , pedagogy , psychometrics , social psychology , developmental psychology , programming language , political science , computer science , law
This study examined how 770 nonscience majors, enrolled in a core‐curriculum science course, conceptualized their motivation to learn science. The students responded to the Science Motivation Questionnaire, a 30‐item Likert‐type instrument designed to provide science education researchers and science instructors with information about students' motivation to learn science. The students' scores on the Science Motivation Questionnaire were reliable and related to students' high school preparation in science, GPA in college science courses, and belief in the relevance of science to their careers. An exploratory factor analysis provided evidence of construct validity, revealing that the students conceptualized their motivation to learn science in terms of five dimensions: intrinsic motivation and personal relevance , self‐efficacy and assessment anxiety , self‐determination , career motivation , and grade motivation . Women and men had different profiles on these dimensions, but equivalent overall motivation to learn science. Essays by all of the students explaining their motivation to learn science and interviews with a sample of the students were used to interpret Science Motivation Questionnaire scores. The findings were viewed in terms of a social‐cognitive theory of learning, and directions for future research were discussed. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 127–146, 2009