Development and evaluation of novel science and chemistry identity measures

Abstract

<p>Identity has been proposed as a mechanism to increase persistence within Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education programs. To assess the impact of identity on STEM persistence, measures that produce valid and reliable data within a given STEM discipline need to be employed. Therefore, this study developed and evaluated the functioning of science and chemistry identity measures in the context of university-level chemistry courses. The developed measures were administered to students enrolled in general and organic chemistry courses at four universities across the United States. Validity and reliability evidence for the data provided by the novel measures was supported using confirmatory factor analysis and McDonald's omega. Additionally, two competing structural equation models (SEMs), designed to explore the relations between mastery experiences, verbal persuasion, situational interest, and science or chemistry identity, were tested and compared to previously reported results. Both SEMs produced acceptable data-model fit, therefore a superior model was chosen based on theoretical support. Within both SEMs, the direct pathway (relation) between mastery experiences and identity was nonsignificant. The more supported model proposed that the relation was indirect and facilitated through verbal persuasion and situational interest. While the indirect relation was supported in both courses, the predominate pathway varied by course. Limitations of the science identity measure, recommendations for future use of the Measure of Chemistry Identity (MoChI), and suggestions for the facilitation of positive identity formation within chemistry classrooms are discussed.</p>

Transfer Student Experiences and Identity Navigation in STEM: Overlapping Figured Worlds of Success

“…, 2015 ; Godwin et al. , 2016 ; Hosbein and Barbera, 2020 ). Paralleling the figured worlds framework, the interaction of the three dimensions in these models demonstrated that identities can be formed in practice and are grounded in sociocultural patterns and behaviors that can either enable or constrain a positive identity trajectory.…”

“…This model captured the identity trajectories of these women within three interrelated dimensions: competence, performance, and recognition (Carlone and Johnson, 2007). Similarly, quantitative models of student identity across STEM disciplines focused on competence and performance as one dimension, recognition as a second dimension, and interest as a third dimension (Hazari et al, 2010(Hazari et al, , 2013Cribbs et al, 2015;Godwin et al, 2016;Hosbein and Barbera, 2020). Paralleling the figured worlds framework, the interaction of the three dimensions in these models demonstrated that identities can be formed in practice and are grounded in sociocultural patterns and behaviors that can either enable or constrain a positive identity trajectory.…”

Response Process Validity Evidence in Chemistry Education Research

“…From CER literature describing the use of cognitive interviews, sample sizes have ranged from 5 to 25 (Supporting Information). 9,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] Recommendations from other sources range from 5 to 15, [44][45][46] with some research suggesting that increasing sample sizes beyond this range does not seem to uncover new response process problems. 47 Using sequential rounds of interviewing can also be advantageous when collecting evidence of response process, 28,36 as some have done in CER.…”

“…Other response process investigations have sought to develop rich, causal understandings of the how and why behind response processes through purposeful integration of theoretical and methodological frameworks. For example, Hosbein and Barbera (2020) asked respondents not only to read the item aloud and describe their interpretation, but also to choose an answer and describe why they chose the answer they did . Of the 43 articles, 9 addressed the question “What information do you believe to be relevant to answering this question?” by probing during their analysis but do not give explicit information regarding how the probing was conducted. ,− Only two of the articles specifically addressed student challenges when answering questions, and only one explicitly asked students, “How difficult was this question to answer?” , …”

“…For example, Hosbein and Barbera (2020) asked respondents not only to read the item aloud and describe their interpretation, but also to choose an answer and describe why they chose the answer they did. 42 Of the 43 articles, 9 addressed the question "What information do you believe to be relevant to answering this question?" by probing during their analysis but do not give explicit information regarding how the probing was conducted.…”