Adaptation of the STEM Value-Expectancy Assessment Scale to Turkish Culture

Abstract

This study aimed to obtain a measurement tool in Turkish culture to determine the motivation of university students (pre-service teachers) toward STEM based on the expectancy-value theory. For this purpose, the validity and reliability studies of the Turkish version of the STEM Value-Expectancy Assessment Scale developed by Appianing and Van Eck (2018) were conducted. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken to check the validity of the scale administered to 196 pre-service science teachers selected by purposeful sampling and Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients were examined for the reliability evaluation. One item that showed a tendency to be loaded on two factors in CFA was removed and the repeated CFA confirmed a good fit for the two-factor structure as in the original scale. In the reliability analysis, the internal consistency coefficients were calculated as .87 for the whole scale, .82 for the perceived value component, and .82 for the expectations of success in STEM careers component. When the validity and reliability results were evaluated together, it was concluded that the adaptation of the scale to Turkish culture was a measurement tool that has high validity and reliability that could be administered to prospective teachers.

Keywords

• STEM
• STEM Education
• Expectancy-Value Theory
• Scale Adaptation

References

1. Akbaba, S. (2006). Eğitimde motivasyon [Motivation in education]. Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13, 343-361.
2. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M.S., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu: Günün modası mı yoksa gereksinim mi? [STEM education Turkey Report: Fashion of the day or need?]. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi
3. Altunel, M. (2018). STEM eğitimi ve Türkiye: Fırsatlar ve riskler [STEM education and Turkey: Opportunities and risks]. SETA Perspektif, 207, 1-7.
4. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing.
5. Appianing, J., & Van Eck, R.N (2018). Development and validation of the Value-Expectancy STEM Assessment Scale for students in higher education. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(24), 1-16.
6. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved July 19, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/
7. Barutçu, T. (2017). Beklenti-değer temelli öğretimde yazma becerileri ve motivasyon ilişkisi [The relation between wri̇ti̇ng ski̇lls and motivation in teachi̇ng based upon the expectancy-value] (Doctoral thesis). Available from YÖK National Thesis Center database. (Thesis No: 485941).
8. Breiner, J., Harkness, S., Johnson, C., & Koehler, C. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.

9. Burak, S. (2014). Motivation for instrument education: A Study with the perspective of expectancy-value and flow theories. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 123-136.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık
11. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education?. Science, 329(5995), 996.
12. Chen, J.A., & Dede, C.J. (2011). Youth STEM motivation: Immersive Technologies to engage and empower underrepresented students. STEM Learning and Research Center: Retrieved June 27, 2019, from http://stelar.edc.org/
13. Çapık, C. (2014). Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarında doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin kullanımı [Use of confirmatory factor analysis in validity and reliability studies]. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(3), 196-205.
14. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
15. Eccles, J.S. (2005). Subjective task value and eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation, 105-121.
16. Eccles, J.S. (2005). Studying gender and ethnic differences in participation in math, physical science and information technology. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 110, 7–14.
17. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
18. Ekeh, P.U., & Njoku, C. (2014). Academic optimism, students’ academic motivation and emotional competence in an inclusive school setting. European Scientific Journal. 10(19), 127-141.
19. Gråstén, A. (2016) Children’s expectancy beliefs and subjective task values through two years of school-based program and associated links to physical education enjoyment and physical activity. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 5(4), 500-509.
20. Hacıömeroğlu, G., & Bulut, A.S. (2016). Integrative STEM Teaching Intention Questionnaire: A validity and relaibility study of the Turkish form. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(3), 654-669.
21. Harackiewicz, J.M., Rozek, C.S., Hulleman, C.S., & Hyde J.S. (2012). Helping Parents to Motivate Adolescents in Mathematics and Science: An Experimental Test of a Utility-Value Intervention. Psychological Science, 23(8), 899–906.
22. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
23. Hossain M., & Robinson, M.G. (2012). How to motivate US students to pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers. US-China Educ Rev A, 4, 442–451.
24. Hambleton, R.K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1-30.
25. Irvine, J. (2018). A framework for comparing theories related to motivation in education. Research in Higher Education Journal, 35, 1-30.
26. Joseph, C.H., Anikelechi, I.G., & Marumo, P. (2019). Academic motivation of school going adolescents: Gender and age difference. Gender and Behaviour, 17(1), 12306-12315.
27. Kline R.B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press, 154-186.
28. Lotta C.L., & Teresa N.M. (2011). 21st Century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record., 47(3), 121-123.
29. MEB (2016). STEM Eğitimi Raporu [STEM education report]. Ankara
30. MEB (2017). STEM Eğitimi Öğretmen El Kitabı [STEM education teacher handbook]. Ankara
31. Meyer, J., Fleckenstein, J., & Köller, O. (2019). Expectancy value interactions and academic achievement: Differential relationships with achievement measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 58–74.
32. Mitchell T.R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 80-88.
33. Morrison, J. (2006). TIES STEM education monograph series, attributes of STEM education. Baltimore, MD: Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM. Partner for Public Education: Retrieved July 15, 2019, from https://www.partnersforpubliced.org/
34. Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., Baumert, J., Köller, O., & Garrett, J. (2006). Gender and Course Selection in Upper Secondary Education: Effects of academic self-concept and intrinsic value. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 323-345.
35. National Science Board. (2007). A National action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07114/nsb07114.pdf (accessed on 16/07/2019)
36. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
37. Onaran, O. (1981). Çalışma yaşamında güdülenme kuramları [Motivation theories in working life]. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları
38. PCAST (2010). Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education for America’s Future Executive Report. Washington National Science Foundation: Retrieved July 13, 2019, https://nsf.gov/
39. Partridge, J., Brustad, R., & Stellino, M.B. (2013). Theoretical perspectives: Eccles’ expectancy-value theory. Advances in Sport Psychology, 3, 269–292.
40. Putwain, D.W., Nicholson, L.J., Pekrun, R., Becker, S., & Symes, W. (2019). Expectancy of success, attainment value, engagement, and Achievement: A moderated mediation analysis. Learning and Instruction, 60, 117-125.
41. Romine, W.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2016). Measuring changes in interest in science and technology at the college level in response to two instructional interventions. Reserch in Science Education, 46(3), 309-327.
42. Rosenzweig, E.Q., & Wigfield, A. (2016). STEM motivation interventions for adolescents: A promising start but further to go. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 146-163.
43. Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.
44. Sanders, M. (2009). Stem, STem Education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
45. Sarısepetçi, M. (2018). An adaptation of the success motivation scale based on the expectation-value theory. International Journal of Education Science and Technology, 4(1), 28-40.
46. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müler, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive Goodness-Of-Fit Measures. Methods Of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
47. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar [Structural equation models: Basic concepts and sample applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
48. Svoboda, R.C., Rozek C.S., Hyde, J.S., Harackiewicz, J.M., & Destin, M. (2016). Understanding the relationship between parental education and STEM course taking through identity-based and expectancy-value theories of motivation. AERA Open, 2(3), 1-13.
49. Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 228-245.
50. Titrek, O., Çetin, C., Kaymak, E., & Kaşıkçı, M. M. (2018). Academic motivation and academic self-efficacy of prospective teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(11a), 77-87.
51. Tünkler, V. (2018). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin sosyal bilgiler dersine yönelik yeterlik beklentileri ve değer algılarının incelenmesi [Examining the adequacy expectations and value perceptions of primary school students towards social studies course]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(4), 1107-1120.
52. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121.
53. West, M. (2012). STEM education and the workplace. Office of the Chief Scientist, Occasional Paper Series, Issue 4. Canberra: Australian Goverment. Retrieved July 20, 2019, https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/
54. Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
55. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
56. Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.). Handbook of motivation at school, 55–75. New York, NY: Routledge.
57. Yazıcı, H. (2009). Öğretmenlik mesleği, motivasyon kaynakları ve temel tutumlar: Kuramsal bir bakış [Teaching profession, sources of motivation and basic attitudes: A theoretical perspective]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(1), 33-46.
58. Yıldırım, B. (2018). Türkiye’nin 2023, 2053 ve 2071 hedefleri için STEM eğitim raporu. [Turkey's 2023, 2053 and 2071 targets for STEM education report]. Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi. Retrieved June 20, 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/