Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
To cite this Article Ainley, Mary and Ainley, John(2011) 'A Cultural Perspective on the Structure of Student Interest in
Science', International Journal of Science Education, 33: 1, 51 — 71
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518640
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518640
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Science Education
Vol. 33, No. 1, 1 January 2011, pp. 51–71
RESEARCH REPORT
In this paper, we examine the nature of interest in science as represented in the Programme for
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011
International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006 data. We discuss the interconnections between
measures of knowledge, affect, and value as components of interest in science. Working from a
perspective acknowledging that many of the models of motivation represented in the literature
have been developed in Western countries, we investigated whether the ways that knowledge,
affect, and value combine in the structure of students’ interest in science might vary in line
with historical and cultural traditions. Four countries were chosen to represent contrasting
cultural values as defined in analyses of the World Values Surveys and the European Values
Surveys—Colombia, Estonia, USA, and Sweden. Models are described showing variations in fit
across the four countries. Efforts to increase the attractiveness of science to students should
take heed of the fact that all models indicated a central role for enjoyment of science in the
paths linking personal value, interest, and current science activities with intentions for future
participation in science. Differences in the strength of the associations between science knowl-
edge and interest in science support the proposition that the interconnections between knowl-
edge, affect, and value need to be understood in relation to students’ broader historical and
cultural context.
Introduction
Most aspects of life in developed countries in the twenty-first century have in some
way been shaped by scientific knowledge. Career opportunities are significantly
increased when students graduate from high school with sound science literacy
investigate how the knowledge, affect, and value components of students’ interest
in science are predictive of their current participation in science activities and their
intentions for future participation. Understanding how interest in science is related
to participation in science, both at the level of current science activities and inten-
tions for future participation in science whether through work, study or participa-
tion in science projects, has practical implications for science educators concerned
with students’ participation in both curricular and extracurricular science activi-
ties.
However, across OECD and partner countries participating in PISA (2006) there
is wide cultural variation and the implications of findings on students’ interest,
achievements and participation in science necessarily depend on understanding how
students’ responses may be influenced by their culture. Within participating coun-
tries there is ample evidence of the influence of socioeconomic factors on students’
achievement (OECD, 2007), but this is only one of many perspectives on how
culture might be associated with students’ interest in science. It is also conceivable
that broader cultural factors such as those embodied in historical and traditional
values might be influential. Using data from the World Values Surveys and the
European Values Surveys, Inglehart and colleagues (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Ingle-
hart & Welzel, 2005) identified two underlying bipolar cultural dimensions consist-
ing of traditional versus secular-rational orientations towards authority and survival
versus self-expression values. For this investigation, four countries—Colombia,
Estonia, USA, and Sweden—were chosen on the basis that they represented major
contrasts in the global cultural space defined by Inglehart’s two dimensions; we
examined how affect, knowledge, and value components of students’ interest in
science are predictive of their current participation in science activities and their
intentions for future participation.
Structure of Interest in Science 53
p. 123).
As is clear from the contributions to this special issue, there are a number of ways
that the term interest can be used in relation to students’ motivation in science. At
the most transient level, interest is used to describe a specific momentary psycholog-
ical state (Ainley, 2007; Hidi, 2006; Krapp, 2002). The second form of interest is
situational interest, which refers to a temporary concentration of attention and feel-
ings in response to a specific situation (Hidi, 1990; Schraw & Lehman, 2001; Wade,
2001). Temporal duration is critical to the identification of situational interest, and
models of the development of interest have used this criterion to distinguish
between, on the one hand, ‘triggered’ and ‘maintained’ situational interest (Hidi &
Renninger, 2006), and on the other hand, ‘awakened or triggered’ and ‘stabilised’
stages of situational interest (Krapp, 2003). The third, and probably the most
commonly referred to form of interest, is the personal orientation, predisposition or
relatively stable tendency to engage with a particular domain, referred to as individ-
ual interest. For all three forms of interest, it is important to emphasise that interest is
the relation between person and object: ‘Interest, then, is not in the object, nor in the
mind of the child, but it emerges as a result of processes that link the two in irrevers-
ible time’ (Valsiner, 1992, p. 33).
What is central to this investigation is the third form of interest, individual or
personal interest, which represents individual differences in students’ general orien-
tation or responsiveness to science (Krapp, 2003; Renninger, 2000). This is a
dimensional approach, and differences in scores on measures of individual interest
represent differences in both the quality and intensity of students’ commitment to
the relevant domain, here science. Krapp’s (2003) stage model of interest develop-
ment proposes one individual interest stage, while Hidi and Renninger (2006)
54 M. Ainley and J. Ainley
interest’ to ‘no interest’. Hence, 15-year-olds with very high scores on the general
interest in learning science scale indicated a high intensity of interest across a range
of topics in the domain of science. That is, they showed strong individual interest in
science rather than an interest in any particular branch of science. Equally, students
with very low scores on this scale were indicating little interest in learning science,
which at the low extreme of the scale was indicative of no individual interest in
science.
Two main lines of research inform our model testing concerning the relation
between the interest in learning science and the participation in science measures.
The first involves propositions concerning the relation between knowledge, affect,
and value components of students’ interest in learning science and their participa-
tion in science-related activities as expressed in the four-phase model of interest
development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). The second draws on some longitudinal
findings of the predictive power of students’ intentions (Khoo & Ainley, 2005).
According to the four-phase model of interest development (Hidi & Renninger,
2006), what distinguishes situational interest from individual interest is the
accrued knowledge and value components that combine with positive affect to
make up the psychological unit that represents an individual interest. Hence, indi-
vidual interest in science has three essential components: stored knowledge or
cognitive schema relevant to the domain, positive feelings towards the domain and
value schema that represent the personal significance of the domain. On this basis,
students with individual interest in science will have acquired a reasonable body of
scientific knowledge and understanding, enjoy participating in science activities
and view science and science activities as personally important. By virtue of having
these characteristics, students will seek to reengage with the interest domain
whenever they have an opportunity. They will generate what Renninger has called
Structure of Interest in Science 55
‘curiosity questions’ and through the process of seeking answers to those ques-
tions, expand their involvement with science-related activities and extend their
knowledge. Despite differences in emphasis (see e.g. Krapp, 2000; Schiefelé,
1996), the same components are essential characteristics in the structure of the
‘person–object theory of interest’ (POI; Krapp, 2005), where having an established
individual interest involves highly differentiated knowledge as well as the central
criterion of closely related ‘value-oriented and emotional components’ (Krapp,
2003, p. 63). Equally critical in these conceptualisations of individual interest is
the expression of individual interest in actions which seek interaction and reen-
gagement with the interest domain.
Hence, we can predict that having a coherent body of science knowledge and
understanding (knowledge), enjoying science (affect), and valuing science (value)
will be predictive of the level of general interest in learning science (individual inter-
est), which in turn will predict being currently engaged in science activities and
having the intention to engage with science activities in the future (current and
future engagements). The PISA (2006) dataset provides an opportunity to test how
well this network of relations holds for 15-year-old students from different cultural
contexts.
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011
the other hand, intrinsic motivation was highest in Asian-American children ‘when
choices were made for them by trusted authority figures or peers’ (Iyengar & Lepper,
1999, p. 349). Dekker and Fischer (2008) used Schwartz’s (see Smith, Bond, &
Kagitcibasi, 2006) dimensions of embeddedness versus autonomy, harmony with
the world versus mastery of the world and hierarchy versus egalitarianism to demon-
strate consistent positive relations between mastery achievement goals and egalitari-
anism. Performance-approach achievement goals were likely to be more prominent
in societies with stronger embeddedness and in less well-developed societies. In
contrast, performance-avoidance achievement goals did not relate significantly to
any of the value dimensions, and were argued to be more likely to be related to indi-
vidual difference factors than to cultural values.
Over time, cultural traditions, values, and practices are subject to a range of forces
that can lead to important changes in patterns of social interaction. Across the twen-
tieth century, significant industrial, technological, and economic developments have
increased the global significance of modern science. However, like the disparities in
socioeconomic status within communities and nations, there are differences between
nations in their access to and adoption of these developments. Inglehart and
colleagues (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005) argue that economic
development over the last century, rather than producing ‘homogenisation’ of
cultural values and practices, has been absorbed into patterns of development that
bear the unmistakable imprint of each country’s history and traditions. They
propose that, within the diversity of cultural patterns, there are two major value
dimensions underpinning the developmental trajectories of modern nations. Using
data from representative national samples collected in the World Values Surveys and
the European Values Surveys (1981–1982; 1990–1991; 1995–1998), Inglehart and
colleagues have found evidence of coherent value differences between participating
58 M. Ainley and J. Ainley
are likely to bring science and opportunities for participation in science activities
closer to the typical experience of young adolescents.
Examining our predictions concerning the relations between the components of
interest in science and the participation variables across a number of countries with
contrasting profiles according to the Inglehart cultural map will provide further
insight into the generality of the relations between the interest variables as presented
in general models of interest processes such as that in Hidi and Renninger’s (2006)
four-phase model of interest development.
Results
For this investigation, we chose the countries participating in PISA (2006; either
OECD or partner country) with the most extreme values from each of the four
quadrants defined by the intersection of Ingleharts’ two macrocultural values dimen-
sions (Inglehart & Baker, 2000, p. 29): traditional (T) versus secular-rational (SR),
and survival (S) versus self-expression (SE). If macrocultural values are related to
interest in science we would expect to find differences in the levels across the interest
in science variables for this set of four countries.
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011
Most of the countries with more extreme scores from the quadrant representing the
combination of traditional and survival values (T_S) were not participants in PISA
(2006). However, there were a number of countries more than one standard deviation
from the mean on the side of traditional values located close to the mean on the survival/
self-expression axis (T/S). These included Chile, Mexico, Turkey, Brazil, and Colom-
bia. From these, we selected Colombia. Five Eastern European countries—Estonia,
Latvia, Russia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria—were located towards the extreme of the
quadrant that combined strong secular-rational values and survival values (SR_S).
Estonia was selected as the most extreme within this set. Only three countries, the
USA, Ireland, and Argentina, in PISA (2006) represented a pattern of strong tradi-
tional values coupled with high self-expression values (T_SE). The USA was approx-
imately 1 standard deviation from the mean on the traditional values axis and more
than 1.5 standard deviations away from the mean on the self-expression axis, and thus
was chosen from this quadrant. Sweden was chosen as the country with the most
extreme position in the quadrant combining secular-rational and self-expression values
(SR_SE). Hence, the countries to be used in further analyses are Colombia (T_S),
Estonia (S_SR), the USA (T_SE), and Sweden (SR_SE). Recent indicators of educa-
tional participation from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics database2 show that three of these
countries (Estonia, USA, and Sweden) have very similar and high participation rates
consistent with their secular-rational and self-expression value orientations. Data from
2006 for the upper secondary graduation rate show the rate for Estonia as 78%, the
USA as 77%, and Sweden as 76% (OECD, 2009). Reference to the gross enrolment
ratio (GER) at international standard classification of education levels 5 and 6, which
represent tertiary enrolments and an index of participation in higher education, shows
a ratio for Estonia of 65%, for the USA 81%, and for Sweden 78%. The fourth country,
60 M. Ainley and J. Ainley
Colombia, had a slightly lower level of upper secondary graduation (64%) and a
substantially lower level of participation in higher education (GER of 32%).
job’ or ‘what I learn will help my job prospects’. As conveyed by the variable label,
this is a pattern of response where learning science is instrumental for achieving a
particular goal that is not necessarily connected with learning science. In contrast,
the variable labelled future-oriented motivation to learn science was designed to measure
how many students actually intended to continue their interest in science and items
referred to future science careers, studies in science and participation in science
projects. For this variable, the emphasis is more directly on the science itself and an
intention to make science part of students’ future. Expectations for a career at 30 was
not included in our analyses because it was a single item reflecting participation in
science careers that provided a narrower measure of future participation in science
than future-oriented motivation to learn science.
In keeping with the objectives of PISA (2006) as an international assessment of
science achievement, there is a focus on a strong reliable measure of science knowl-
edge and understanding. The database includes five plausible values for this index
generated from Rasch scaling of the science achievement items (OECD, 2007, pp.
40–52). For our analyses, we used the first plausible value as our index of science
knowledge. All interest in science variables are represented as weighted likelihood
estimates (WLEs) of the scale scores (OECD, 2009, pp. 314–327). Table 1 presents
a summary description of the scales.
Following the model of interest processes that posits knowledge, affect, and value
as components of individual interest, and the related proposition that individual
interest influences students’ engagement and reengagement with the interest domain,
the following propositions were investigated. We expected that enjoyment of science,
science knowledge, and importance of learning science (general value and personal value)
would predict general interest in learning science, which would in turn predict participa-
tion in science-related activities and future-oriented motivation to learn science.
Structure of Interest in Science 61
The mean WLEs of scale scores indexed as standard scores are presented for each
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011
Figure 1. Profiles of mean weighted likelihood estimates (WLE) of the scale scores on interest in
science variables
Key: Scales: INS = General interest in science; ENJ = Enjoyment of science; GVS = General
value of science; PVS = Personal value of science; ACT = Science-related activities; FUT =
Future-oriented motivation to learn science
Table 2. Correlations between scales used to test models of the structure of individual interest in
science for Colombia, USA, Estonia, and Sweden
Colombia:
Knowledge (SCK) −0.05 −0.07 0.12 −0.08 −0.09 −0.09
Enjoyment (ENJ) — 0.54 0.34 0.43 0.47 0.50
Personal value (PVS) — 0.52 0.41 0.41 0.45
General value (GVS) — 0.28 0.27 0.21
Interest (INS) — 0.35 0.37
Activities (ACT) — 0.41
USA
Knowledge (SCK) 0.28 0.24 0.31 0.14 0.13 0.16
Enjoyment (ENJ) — 0.60 0.44 0.63 0.58 0.61
Personal value (PVS) — 0.70 0.54 0.47 0.55
General value (GVS) — 0.39 0.33 0.31
Interest (INS) — 0.50 0.52
Activities (ACT) — 0.41
Estonia
Knowledge (SCK) 0.22 0.20 0.33 0.16 0.07 0.06
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011
focused our test of fit on the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).
A value of 0.05 or less indicates a close fit, values up to 0.08 represent acceptable fit
and values greater than 0.10 indicate poor model fit (Byrne, 2001). Model fit can
also be assessed with other indexes such as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), which are relatively independent of sample size and
correct for model complexity (Bollen & Long, 1993). High values for CFI and TLI
(greater than 0.9) indicate satisfactory model fit. In our result tables, we report these
three fit indexes as well as several others. For our analyses, chi-square statistics for
the null hypotheses are poor fit measures because our sample sizes are so large that
even small differences will appear to be statistically significant. The results for Model
64 M. Ainley and J. Ainley
Table 3. Individual interest in science model: Model A and fit indices for selected countries
A are presented in Table 3 and Figure 2. Only one of the value variables (personal
value) is shown in the model. There was a very high correlation between the
personal value of science and general value of science across the four countries, and
inclusion of both variables resulted in poorer fit parameters.
As can be seen from Table 3 and Figure 2, the model was a poor fit for all four
Figure 2.
countries. While there were strong positive correlations among enjoyment of science,
personal value of science and general interest in learning science for all four coun-
tries, interest in learning science does not appear to mediate their predictive relations
with current activities and future engagement. As pointed out previously, there was
no consistent pattern of relations between knowledge and the rest of the variables.
For Colombia, all of the correlations with knowledge were close to zero, while for
Estonia and the USA, knowledge had moderate, positive correlations with enjoy-
ment of science and personal value of science. The strongest correlations were for
Sweden, where knowledge had moderate, positive correlations with all of the vari-
ables. Further inspection of the zero-order correlations shown in Table 2 indicated
that enjoyment of science generally had strong associations with most of the vari-
ables for all four countries; an adjusted model (Model B) was tested locating enjoy-
ment of science as the mediator rather than interest in learning science. The results
are shown in Table 4 and Figure 3.
Structure of Interest in Science 65
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011
Inspection of the RMSEA values in Table 4 indicates that of the four countries,
Figure 3.
only Columbia’s dataset had an acceptable fit for Model B. The other three coun-
tries indicated poor fit for Model B. The strongest paths in Model B for the students
from Colombia link interest in science and personal value of science with current
and future science activities through the mediator of enjoyment of science. Science
knowledge did not make any substantial contribution to the pattern of relations
within the network of interest in science variables.
Data from Sweden showed the poorest fit for Model B (Figure 3). In contrast to
the Colombia pattern of correlations, for Sweden there were significant correlations
between science knowledge and all of the interest variables, with the highest coefficient
linking science knowledge and enjoyment of science (0.37). We then determined that
the best-fitting model for the Swedish dataset was a model with enjoyment of science
as a mediator of science knowledge and personal value on general interest in science.
This model (Model C) is shown in Table 5 and Figure 4. While enjoyment of science
mediates the relation of science knowledge and personal value of science for current
and future activities, there are additional significant relations between personal value
and enjoyment of science predictive of current and future activities mediated by inter-
est in learning science. However, these paths are not as strong as the paths from enjoy-
ment of science to current and future participation. When Model C was tested for the
other countries, each produced an acceptable fit (see Table 5).
The strongest paths in Model C connect personal value through enjoyment of
Figure 4.
science to general interest in science and to current and future participation variables.
General interest in science then adds a smaller but still significant contribution to the
66 M. Ainley and J. Ainley
Table 4. Individual interest in science model: Model B and fit indices for selected countries
Table 5. Individual interest in science and macro culture: Model C fit indices
Figure 4. Model of individual interest in science: Model C showing coefficients for Sweden
68 M. Ainley and J. Ainley
Conclusion
Over the past two decades, many Western countries have experienced a declining
percentage of students studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM), and in 2005 the OECD Global Science Forum concluded that govern-
ments needed to take steps to make science and technology studies more attractive if
participation in science was to be increased (OECD, 2006). However, making
Structure of Interest in Science 69
science and technology studies more attractive requires a close understanding of the
processes that contribute to students’ interest in science. Models such as the four-
phase model of interest development of Hidi and Renninger (2006) propose that
knowledge, affect, and value are essential components of a strong individual interest
in science. The analyses we have presented here extend the basic model presented by
Hidi and Renninger to show that there are important differences in the ways that the
essential components of interest in science are connected and that these differences
can reflect contrasts in students’ broad cultural backgrounds. Both Models B and C
as described in this paper locate enjoyment of science as a central component of the
network of relations within the set of interest in science variables. In addition, the
personal value students place on science has an important influence on their enjoy-
ment of science. Model B was only appropriate for one of the countries, Colombia,
while Model C showed an acceptable fit for all four countries and the fit for
Colombia was marginally better than the fit for Model B.
As Models B and C demonstrate, there are differences in the ways knowledge,
affect, and value components are related to each other in data from the countries
selected for comparison. The countries differed in their profiles across the set of
interest in science variables; significantly, they also differed on levels of science
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011
knowledge. In those countries, where the overall level of science knowledge was
higher, personal value of science and knowledge were more closely connected. Both
Models B and C indicated that enjoyment of science was a central component in the
network of relations and personal value was an important factor predicting enjoy-
ment. Where the overall level of science knowledge was higher, science knowledge
was also a predictor of enjoyment. As has been shown in research into other areas of
children’s development (e.g. Dekker & Fischer, 2008; Larson & Verma, 1999), the
historical and cultural traditions of countries provide the macrocontext for children’s
development. Our analyses of PISA data indicated parallel findings by identifying
two models with different patterns of interconnection between the knowledge, value,
and affect variables that constitute interest in science. Models of interest in science
developed in Western traditions may not always fit the pattern of relations that
develop in different cultural contexts.
In addition, having a general interest in learning science predicts both current and
intended future participation in science-related activities. Both Models B and C
demonstrate the centrality of enjoyment of science for current and intended future
participation in science-related activities. We conclude from these data that
programmes of science education that are perceived by students to be personally
important and that they enjoy doing will be associated with stronger interest in
learning about science. If, as other research has shown (Khoo & Ainley, 2005),
intentions are important influences on future educational participation, these find-
ings suggest that curricula that recognise the importance of students’ enjoyment of
science and sense of its personal importance are likely to increase students’ partici-
pation in the science activities immediately available in their environment. In addi-
tion, they are likely to maintain their participation whether in further study, careers
or involvement in science projects.
70 M. Ainley and J. Ainley
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this paper were presented in 2009 at the conference of the European
Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, August, 2009, and
at the European Commission Conference, ‘Improving Education: Evidence from
Secondary Analysis of International Studies’, Stockholm, November, 2009.
Notes
1. The exception to this general level of response was the set of items requiring students to
record interest and support for science ratings to topics that they worked on as part of the
measure of science achievement. With respect to the interest ratings, at the end of designated
problems students were asked for ratings of how interested they were in engaging further with
the particular topic they had been working on. These items are referred to as the ‘embedded
interest items’. These embedded items are not dealt with here but are the subject of another
investigation (Ainley & Ainley, in press).
2. UIS data base accessed from http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?URL_ID=3753&URL_
DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011
References
Ainley, M. (2007). Being and feeling interested: Transient state, mood, and disposition. In P. Schutz
& R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotions and education (pp. 147–163). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (in press). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The
contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology.
Arbuckle, J. (2005). AMOS 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.
Asakawa, K., & Csikszentimihalyi, M. (1998). The quality of experience of Asian American
adolescents in academic activities: An exploration of educational achievement. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8(2), 241–262.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, S. J. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA/
London: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2004). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human devel-
opment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M.
Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human
development, pp. 535–584). New York: Wiley.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with amos. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chao, R. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese
Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72(6), 1832–1843.
Dekker, S., & Fischer, R. (2008). Cultural differences in academic motivation goals: A meta-
analysis across 13 societies. Journal of Educational Research, 102(2), 99–110.
Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffler.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefelé, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 1017–
1096). New York: Wiley.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of
Educational Research, 60(3), 549–571.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1(2),
69–82.
Structure of Interest in Science 71
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue
for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of
traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human
development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349–366.
Khoo, S. T., & Ainley, J. (2005). Attitudes, intentions and participation. Camberwell: ACER.
Krapp, A. (2000). Interest and human development during adolescence: An educational-
psychological approach. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development
(pp. 109–128). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Krapp, A. (2002). An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to SDT. In E.
L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), The handbook of self-determination research (pp. 405–427).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Krapp, A. (2003). Interest and human development: An educational-psychological perspective.
Development and Motivation, BJEP Monograph Series, Series II(2), 57–84.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orienta-
tions. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 381–395.
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011
Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world:
Work, play, and developmental outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 701–736.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2006). Evolution of student
interest in science and technology studies: Policy report. Paris: OECD Global Science Forum.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2007). PISA 2006: Science
competencies for tomorrow’s world (Vol. 1: Analysis). Paris: Author.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2009). Education at a
glance 2008: OECD indicators. Paris: UNESCO.
Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and
practice. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and
development (pp. 361–395). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic moti-
vation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search
for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 375–407). New York: Academic Press.
Renninger, K. A. (2009). Interest and identity development in instruction: An inductive model.
Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 105–118.
Schiefelé, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 21(1), 3–18.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for
future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52.
Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Kagitcibasi, C. (2006). Understanding social psychology across cultures.
London: Sage.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–1281.
Valsiner, J. (1992). Interest: A metatheoretical perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A.
Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 27–41). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wade, S. E. (2001). Research on importance and interest: Implications for curriculum develop-
ment and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 243–261.