Sunteți pe pagina 1din 22

This article was downloaded by:

On: 8 April 2011


Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science Education


Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

A Cultural Perspective on the Structure of Student Interest in Science


Mary Ainleya; John Ainleyb
a
Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia b Australian Council for
Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia

Online publication date: 11 January 2011

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf


This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

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

A Cultural Perspective on the Structure


of Student Interest in Science
Mary Ainleya∗ and John Ainleyb
aPsychologicalSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; bAustralian
Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia
10MaryAinley
maryda@unimelb.edu.au
000002010
International
10.1080/09500693.2010.518640
TSED_A_518640.sgm
0950-0693
Original
Taylor
2010
33 &
and
Article
Francis
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
Journal of Science
(online)
Education

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.

Keywords: Large-scale studies; Scientific literacy; Structural equation modelling; Interest;


Motivation; 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

*Corresponding author. Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria


3010, Australia. Email: maryda@unimelb.edu.au

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/11/010051–21


© 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.518640
52 M. Ainley and J. Ainley

skills. Underpinning the support for international programmes monitoring student


achievement in science (e.g. Programme for International Student Assessment
[PISA], 2006) are the concerns of scholars and education researchers in industria-
lised, Western societies that a decline in students’ academic motivation for science
studies may be associated with lower levels of science achievement (Eccles, Wigfield,
& Schiefelé, 1998; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000).
Simultaneously, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment’s (OECD) educational policy recognises that in addition to achievement, an
important educational outcome for today’s young people is an attitude that gives
participation in science an important place both in their current life and their
future (OECD, 2006). This educational goal is often expressed in terms of
commitment to lifelong learning, with the implication that it involves more than
just the choice of scientific careers or further education, but may also be expressed
through participation in science activities and projects within students’ commu-
nity. Hence, interest in science involves how students view scientific information
and activities, and it is assumed that these reactions underpin students’ choices to
participate in science activities in both their present and future lives. In this paper,
we use measures from the set of interest in science concepts from PISA (2006) to
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

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

Interest and Participation in Science


There is a long history of interest being linked with achievement motivation and with
educational achievement (Dewey, 1913). In this investigation, we shift the focus to
consider relations between interest and students’ reports of their participation in
both current and future science-related activities. The PISA (2006) science expert
group defined a set of knowledge- and information-seeking behaviours from which
interest in science can be inferred. As can be seen from the following statement of
their perspective on interest in science, participation in science-related activities is an
important aspect of interest in science and in this investigation we explore how the
set of interest in science indicators coheres to predict student participation in current
and future science-related activities. According to the OECD, students with interest
in science:

● indicate curiosity in science and science-related issues and endeavours;


● demonstrate willingness to acquire additional scientific knowledge and skills,
using a variety of resources and methods; and
● demonstrate willingness to seek information and have an ongoing interest in
science, including consideration of science-related careers (OECD, 2007, vol. 1,
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

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

propose a distinction between an ‘emerging’ individual interest and a ‘well-


developed’ individual interest based on the level of personal commitment and
autonomy expressed in the level of engagement and reengagement with the interest
domain. Hidi and Renninger define prototypes of these two phases but as examina-
tion of the defining characteristics of these phases indicates, they represent early
(emerging) and later (well-developed) points in a developmental dimension. Not
all emerging individual interests become elaborated into well-developed individual
interests, and in some recent writings, the reference to well-developed individual
interest rather than simply individual interest has been used to denote the extreme
of the dimension with the caveat that this may only occur rarely (Renninger,
2009).
In the current investigation, we are concerned with individual interest as a dimen-
sion expressing a general relation with learning science. The PISA (2006) attitudinal
measures targeted students’ general responsiveness to science.1 The general interest
in learning science measure in PISA (2006) required students to rate the intensity of
their interest in learning about a range of topics areas, for example, physics, astron-
omy and the biology of plants. The question was expressed as ‘How much interest
do you have in learning about …’ and the four response options ranged from ‘high
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

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

Because PISA is essentially a cross-sectional study, the predictive effects of


interest in science on actual future participation in science-related activities
cannot be determined. However, recent investigations using longitudinal designs
have demonstrated significant influences of current attitudes on future behav-
iour. Khoo and Ainley (2005) tested the predictive relation between attitudes to
schooling and intentions to continue beyond the end of compulsory schooling
using data from Grade 9 students participating in LSAY. Khoo and Ainley’s
findings have been introduced because the PISA (2006) measures of interest in
science are analogous to the attitude to schooling measures in LSAY. For exam-
ple, in the structure of the 30-item LSAY attitude to schooling scale, students
expressing the strongest agreement with statements such as ‘the work we do is
interesting’, ‘I get excited about the work we do’, ‘I enjoy what I do in class’
and ‘I find that learning is a lot of fun’ had the highest overall attitude scores.
PISA (2006) measures of interest in learning science and enjoyment of science
have clear similarities with the substance of Khoo and Ainley’s attitude to school
scale.
The LSAY results for the predictive relation between attitudes and intentions at
Grade 9, and participation in further schooling as measured by enrolment in Grade
12 and again by enrolment in tertiary education, indicated that attitudes to schooling
influence future participation in schooling and tertiary study through their effects on
students’ intentions. The effect of attitudes was mediated through intentions for
future participation. Hence, attitudes to schooling affect intentions, and intentions
have an important influence on later behaviour; although cross-sectional in nature,
the quality of the PISA (2006) database provides an opportunity to explore relations
between interest in science variables and students’ expressions of future involvement
in science-related activities.
56 M. Ainley and J. Ainley

Cultural Context and Interest in Science


While the research that underpins most models of student motivation and achieve-
ment depends heavily on findings from north America and western Europe, the wide
range of OECD and partner countries participating in PISA (2006) affords an oppor-
tunity to test the generality of these models in a range of countries with different histor-
ical, political, and cultural traditions. PISA (2006) measures have been constructed
to be accessible to students from all participating countries. Thus, they provide oppor-
tunities to test how well models positing a combination of knowledge, affect, and value
components of individual interest reflect the interdependencies between the PISA
(2006) interest in science variables and their relations with measures of current and
future engagement for students from different cultural contexts.
Contemporary perspectives from developmental science provide a useful frame-
work for understanding some of the cultural influences on students’ interest and
achievement in science. For example, Bronfenbrenner’s model of ecological devel-
opment (Bronfenbrenner, 2004; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) draws attention
to nested layers of influence on wide-ranging aspects of children’s development. The
microsystem of children’s immediate environment, including institutions and
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

systems such as family, school, and neighbourhood, is embedded in the broader


macrosystem of the historical traditions, legal systems, cultural values, and practices
of the community and the nation. At a level equivalent to Bronfenbrenner’s micro-
system, detailed analyses of science achievement in relation to students’ socioeco-
nomic status have been reported (OECD, 2007, p. 333). As expected, students from
more advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds achieved significantly higher scores
on measures of science literacy than students from less advantaged backgrounds.
The strength of this association varied considerably across countries as did the level
of variability within countries (see OECD, 2007, p. 183ff.).
To identify macrosystem influences, it is necessary to examine relations among
the interests in science variables at the level of individual countries with contrasting
historical and cultural traditions and values. A number of research programmes
point to the place of macrosystem influences on children’s academic attitudes, inter-
ests, and achievements. Larson and Verma (1999) used the findings from an exten-
sive review of research on patterns of work and leisure as represented in the time use
of children around the world, to point out that while economic development is
associated with people in communities placing greater value on economic self-
sufficiency, there were also important differences in the ways these economic values
are integrated into social and cultural values. For example, they contrasted the pair-
ing of economic self-sufficiency and individualism in the family as regularly observed
in Western societies with observations of children and families in Japan, where
people ‘have come to value economic self-sufficiency without altering collectivist
values on emotional interdependency and close-knit family relationships’ (p. 704).
Macrocultural values have been used to explain the well-documented differences
between Asian-American and Caucasian-American adolescents within local
communities in the USA, highlighting the potential for macrocultural systems to
Structure of Interest in Science 57

affect development within multicultural communities within nations. Sometimes


referred to as the ‘Asian-American paradox’, researchers reported that the usual
pattern of predictive relationships between authoritarian parenting styles and lower
levels of school achievement were not observed in research in the USA when the
student samples consisted of Asian-American students (see Steinberg, Lamborn,
Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). More detailed analysis of parenting and schooling
factors (e.g. Asakawa & Csikszentimihalyi, 1998; Chao, 2001) demonstrated that
the strong family traditions and cultural values experienced by Asian-American
students were often associated with high achievement. Western interpretations of
Asian parenting practices as authoritarian parenting have been shown to misinter-
pret the meaning of cultural and family practices. Further complexities have been
introduced into these interpretations with research findings demonstrating differ-
ences in parenting and achievement relations for students from different Asian
nations (Chao, 2001).
Macrocultural values have also been linked to the differential effectiveness of
choice for enhancing student motivation. As reported by Iyengar and Lepper
(1999), intrinsic motivation was lower for Anglo-American children when choices
were made for them and higher when they were able to choose for themselves. On
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

nations. The 65 countries contributing to these databases are claimed to represent


approximately 75% of the world’s population (Inglehart & Baker, 2000), and two
broad bipolar value dimensions emerged consistently across these waves of data.
The first dimension is orientation to authority and contrasts traditional values
which emphasise religion and obedience to traditional authorities, with secular-
rational values where deference to religious authority is not given a high priority, and
where family and social values are seen as relative rather than absolute (Inglehart &
Baker, 2000; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). Inglehart and colleagues’ findings link this
dimension to the shift from agrarian to industrial social organisation, which has been
accompanied by ‘rationalisation of authority, reflected in rising secular-rational
values’ (2005, p. 58). It is suggested that the second major dimension emerged with
the rise of ‘service and knowledge sectors’ as industrialised societies became more
affluent. On one side of this second dimension are survival values, where the
economic and physical security of the community underpins values and action. On
the other side are self-expression values where individual autonomy, subjective well-
being and personal quality of life concerns are prominent. Findings from the values
surveys suggest that associated with high self-expression values is a tendency for
people to express ‘relatively low levels of confidence in technology and scientific
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

discoveries as the solution to human problems’ (2005, p. 137). In contrast, it is


suggested that members of societies with high survival values express relatively ‘high
levels of faith in science and technology’ (2000, p. 28). Participation in higher
education and the spread of scientific knowledge are associated with both secular-
rational and self-expression values. Inglehart and Welzel (2005) also point out that
these relations are connected with economic conditions such that when circum-
stances challenge economic security, survival values become more prominent and
there is less emphasis on autonomy and self-expression.
Hence, at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century,
there is ample evidence of important differences between countries in terms of basic
cultural values and orientations. It is also clear that these are not absolute differ-
ences. Within countries there are often subgroups whose values reflect the culture
and historical traditions of their family origins rather than those of the dominant
group. While it is not the only system represented in the literature, Inglehart’s
‘global map of cross-cultural variation’ (see Inglehart & Baker, 2000, p. 29) provides
a framework to test whether models of interest in science that have been developed
in Western societies apply across a range of cultures.
We expected that students’ interest in science will reflect something of the place of
science within the contemporary landscape of each country’s cultural traditions and
values. It is likely that students with different cultural experiences of science may
evidence differences in the way underlying processes combine in the structure of
their interest in science. Following Inglehart and colleagues’ (2000, 2005) analysis,
different levels of faith and confidence in science and technology as identified in
relation to the survival/self-expression dimension would be expected. Simulta-
neously, the changing social and cultural patterns associated with moves from
traditional to secular-rational social patterns and expanding educational experiences
Structure of Interest in Science 59

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%).

Interest in Science Measures


When an existing database is used to test propositions derived from theories that
were not specifically used to guide scale construction, the measures will not neces-
sarily be an exact match for the theoretical constructs. However, they do provide
proxies for model testing.
As measured in PISA (2006), interest in science records how students respond to
scientific information and activities, and it is assumed that this pattern of reactions
underpins students’ choices to participate in science activities in both their present
and future lives. Hence, in this investigation we focused on the set of measures in
PISA (2006) designed to assess interest in science: general interest in learning science,
enjoyment of science, general value of science, personal value of science, participation in
science-related activities, and future-oriented motivation to learn science. Instrumental
motivation to learn science was not included, as these items focus on learning science
in school because it ‘will help me in the work I want to do later’, ‘will help me get a
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

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

Table 1. Summary description of PISA scales

No. of Cronbach’s alpha


Indexa items Example item OECD/Partner

General interest in learning 8 How much interest do you have in 0.85/0.82


science learning about …
The biology of plants
Enjoyment of science 5 I am happy doing science problems 0.88/0.91
General value of science 5 Advances in science and technology 0.75/0.72
usually bring social benefits
Personal value of science 5 I find that science helps me to 0.75/0.72
understand things around me
Science-related activities 6 Watch TV programmes about science 0.80/0.79
Future-oriented motivation 4 I would like to work on science 0.92/0.90
to learn science projects as an adult

aNames of scales as reported in PISA (2006, vol. 1, p. 373).

The mean WLEs of scale scores indexed as standard scores are presented for each
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

of the four countries in Figure 1. Colombia, from the traditional/survival quadrant,


had the highest mean ratings on all of the interest in science variables while Sweden,
from the secular-rational/self-expression quadrant showed exactly the opposite pattern
with the lowest mean scores on all the interest variables. The contrasting patterns of
mean ratings for these countries confirm our general prediction that responses to the
interest in science variables may reflect the degree to which science and technology
are embedded within the cultural fabric. Here, the comparison is between a country
(Sweden) where science and technology are an assumed part of everyday life and a
country (Colombia) where only more recently have science and technology become
possible career and lifestyle opportunities for large numbers of young people.
However, the high ratings for the Colombian students do not simply represent
response bias, as there is clear discrimination between ratings on some of the variables.
For example, general and personal values of science scales were subsets of items within
the same question and the mean rating for general value of science was substantially
lower than the mean rating for personal value of science for Colombian students. The
content of the general value of science items refers to outcomes such as improved
living conditions, improved economic conditions, and general social benefits, that is,
what has been achieved for them and their community through science. Personal value
of science items refer to current circumstances comprising both people and things in
their environment as well as personal opportunities for the future through science.
Profiles for the USA, from the traditional/self-expression quadrant, and Estonia,
Figure 1.

from the survival/secular-rational quadrant, ranked between the extremes on all of


the variables. The major divergence between these groups was on the participation
in current science activities variables, where the Estonian students had higher ratings
than the USA students. Future participation ratings for these two countries showed
the reverse results.
62 M. Ainley and J. Ainley
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

As knowledge is also an important component in the model we are testing, we


calculated each country’s mean science knowledge score using the first plausible
value as the index of science knowledge. The order of science knowledge scores is
almost the reverse of levels on the interest profiles. Estonia had the highest science
knowledge mean (532.0) followed by Sweden (503.41). Colombia had the lowest
science knowledge score (386.68), with the USA (488.89) scoring just below the
overall scale mean of 500. Correlations between the interest in science variables for
each of the four countries are shown in Table 2. Of particular significance for the
model being tested is the variable relation between knowledge and general interest in
learning science across the four countries. The correlation was close to zero for
Colombia and around 0.3 for the other countries.
Using AMOS 7.0 (see Arbuckle, 2005) for each of the four countries, we tested a
model (Model A) that positioned knowledge, affect, and value (science knowledge,
enjoyment of science, personal value of science, general value of science) as predic-
tors of general interest in science, which in turn predicted current and future engage-
ments with science (participation in science-related activities and future-oriented
motivation to learn science). Because we were dealing with very large samples, we
Structure of Interest in Science 63

Table 2. Correlations between scales used to test models of the structure of individual interest in
science for Colombia, USA, Estonia, and Sweden

ENJ PVS GVS INS ACT FUT

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

Enjoyment (ENJ) — 0.56 0.33 0.54 0.57 0.53


Personal value (PVS) — 0.54 0.48 0.47 0.46
General value (GVS) — 0.30 0.23 0.18
Interest (INS) — 0.50 0.44
Activities (ACT) — 0.50
Sweden
Knowledge (SCK) 0.37 0.29 0.34 0.32 0.26 0.27
Enjoyment (ENJ) — 0.69 0.53 0.69 0.58 0.65
Personal value (PVS) — 0.71 0.59 0.29 0.63
General value (GVS) — 0.47 0.40 0.41
Interest (INS) — 0.53 0.55
Activities (ACT) — 0.49

Note. Knowledge (SCK) = Science knowledge; Enjoyment (ENJ) = Enjoyment of science;


Personal (PVS) = Personal value of science; General (GVS) = General value of science; Interest
(INS) = General interest in science; Activities (ACT) = Science-related activities; Future Science
(FUT) = Future-oriented motivation to learn science.

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

Colombia USA Estonia Sweden


(T/S) (T/SE) (SR/S) (SR/SE)

Interest (INS) ← Knowledge (SCK) −0.05 −0.07 0.02 0.07


Interest (INS) ← Personal value (PVS) 0.26 0.28 0.26 0.23
Interest (INS) ← Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.31 0.53 0.43 0.58
Activities (ACT) ← Knowledge (SCK) −0.06 −0.04 −0.09 0.04
Activities (ACT) ← Personal value (PVS) 0.22 0.16 0.18 0.21
Activities (ACT) ← Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.33 0.40 0.38 0.32
Activities (ACT) ← Interest (INS) 0.14 0.17 0.24 0.20
Future science (FUT) ← Knowledge (SCK) −0.06 −0.03 −0.09 0.02
Future science (FUT) ← Personal value (PVS) 0.19 0.27 0.21 0.35
Future science (FUT) ← Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.34 0.40 0.36 0.38
Future science (FUT) ← Interest (INS) 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.13
NFI 0.720 0.747 0.733 0.698
RFI −0.472 −0.329 −0.404 −0.583
IFI 0.720 0.747 0.733 0.699
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

TLI −0.474 −0.330 −0.405 −0.584


CFI 0.719 0.747 0.732 0.698
RMSEA 0.303 0.370 0.349 0.445
R2 Interest (INT) 0.16 0.36 0.25 0.40
Future science (FUT) 0.24 0.35 0.28 0.37
Activities (ACT) 0.21 0.31 0.34 0.28

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

Figure 2. Model of individual interest in science: Model A

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

Colombia USA Estonia Sweden


(T/S) (T/SE) (SR/S) (SR/SE)

Enjoyment (ENJ) ← Knowledge (SCK) 0.01 0.15 0.09 0.12


Enjoyment (ENJ) ← Personal Value (PVS) 0.44 0.34 0.39 0.43
Enjoyment (ENJ) ← Interest (INS) 0.25 0.44 0.35 0.42
Activities (ACT) ← Knowledge (SCK) −0.05 −0.04 −0.09 0.04
Activities (ACT) ← Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.31 0.38 0.35 0.29
Activities (ACT) ← Personal value (PVS) 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.19
Activities (ACT) ← Interest (INS) 0.14 0.18 0.24 0.20
Future science (FUT) ← Personal value (PVS) 0.22 0.26 0.20 0.32
Future science (FUT) ← Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.32 0.36 0.34 0.34
Future science (FUT) ← Interest (INS) 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.13
Future science (FUT) ← Knowledge (SCK) −0.06 −0.03 −0.08 0.01
NFI 0.994 0.974 0.975 0.950
RFI 0.932 0.725 0.733 0.506
IFI 0.994 0.974 0.975 0.953
TLI 0.936 0.726 0.735 0.507
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

CFI 0.994 0.974 0.975 0.953


RMSEA 0.060 0.168 0.151 0.249
R2 Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.34 0.49 0.41 0.59
Future science (FUT) 0.31 0.44 0.35 0.48
Activities (ACT) 0.27 0.37 0.41 0.37

Figure 3. Model of individual interest in science: Model B


Structure of Interest in Science 67

Table 5. Individual interest in science and macro culture: Model C fit indices

Colombia USA Estonia Sweden


(T/S) (T/SE) (SR/S) (SR/SE)

Enjoyment (ENJ) ← Knowledge (SCK) −0.01 0.15 0.11 0.19


Enjoyment (ENJ) ← Personal value (PV) 0.54 0.57 0.54 0.64
Interest (INS) ← Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.29 0.48 0.40 0.55
Interest (INS) ← Personal value (PVS) 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.21
Activities (ACT) ← Personal value (PVS) 0.19 0.15 0.16 0.19
Activities (ACT) ← Interest (INS) 0.14 0.18 0.24 0.20
Activities (ACT) ← Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.31 0.37 0.34 0.31
Future science (FUT) ← Personal value (PVS) 0.22 0.25 0.19 0.32
Future science (FUT) ← Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.32 0.36 0.33 0.35
Future science (FUT) ← Interest (INS) 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.13
NFI 0.992 0.996 0.990 0.997
RFI 0.946 0.970 0.932 0.976
IFI 0.993 0.996 0.991 0.997
TLI 0.950 0.972 0.934 0.978
CFI 0.993 0.996 0.991 0.997
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

RMSEA 0.056 0.054 0.076 0.052


R2
Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.29 0.38 0.33 0.51
Interest (INS) 0.23 0.44 0.34 0.50
Activities (ACT) 0.27 0.37 0.39 0.37
Future Science (FUT) 0.31 0.44 0.34 0.50

Figure 4. Model of individual interest in science: Model C showing coefficients for Sweden
68 M. Ainley and J. Ainley

prediction of reports of current participation and intentions to participate in science


in the future.
It is clear from Models B and C that there are some important differences in the
way the processes that make up interest in science are connected together for young
adolescent students from different countries. As shown in the parameter estimates for
both Models B and C, there was considerable variation in the contribution of science
knowledge to the complex of interest variables. Knowledge of science as represented
in the PISA index of science knowledge and understanding was largely unrelated to
ratings of interest in science for Colombia, where participation in higher education is
not the norm for the majority of students, and where science and technology are a
relatively recent part of the fabric of careers and future activities. Colombian students’
ratings of interest in science were high but were not contingent on their knowledge
base in science. On the other hand, in countries where participation in higher educa-
tion is the norm and where science is deeply embedded in the general fabric of the
lifestyle, such as Sweden, students’ levels of science knowledge appear to play a more
important part in their expression of interest in science across a variety of indicators.
On the basis of these findings it appears that scores on measures of interest in
science such as those included in this investigation need to be interpreted as part of a
Downloaded At: 11:44 8 April 2011

network of related processes. Clearly students who experience enjoyment when


learning science and are aware that science has personal importance for them have
strong intentions for further participation, and there is evidence that such intentions
influence students’ actual behaviour. However, the variable relations with knowl-
edge of science within the complex of interest processes suggest that interpretation
of the educational significance of interest in learning about science requires comple-
mentary indications of students’ knowledge of science. If a student’s assertion that
he or she is interested in learning about science is based on a strong knowledge of
science, this requires a different type of educational provision and support than
required for a student without a strong knowledge base who reports the same level of
interest in learning science. As Renninger (2009) suggests in her description of a
well-developed individual interest, when students express enjoyment and value for a
domain in the absence of a strong knowledge base, they are unlikely to engage in the
same depth of self-directed information seeking as students whose enjoyment and
valuing of the domain is underpinned by a strong knowledge base. An earlier
description of the experience of enjoying and valuing a domain as an ‘attraction’
rather than an individual interest (Renninger, 1992) underlines this difference in
experiences that are needed to support, maintain, and deepen that interest.

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.

S-ar putea să vă placă și