Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning

The American Educational Research Association (AERA) publishes books and journals based on the highest standards of professional review to ensure their quality, accuracy, and objectivity. Findings and conclusions in publications are those of the authors and do not reflect the position or policies of the Association, its Council, or its officers.

© 2015 American Educational Research Association

The AERA Books Editorial Board

Chair: Gilberto Q. Conchas

Members: D. Jean Clandinin, Jeffrey R. Henig, Felice J. Levine, Simon W. Marginson, Nailah Suad Nasir, Charles M. Payne, Russell W. Rumberger, Mariana Souto-Manning

Published by the American Educational Research Association

1430 K St., NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005

Printed in the United States of America

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, including, but not limited to, the process of scanning and digitization, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Interest in mathematics and science learning / edited by K. Ann Renninger, Martina Nieswandt, and Suzanne Hidi.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and subject index.

ISBN 978-0-935302-38-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-0-935302-39-4 (hardback : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-0-935302-42-4 (e-book) -- ISBN 978-0-935302-60-8 (kindle) -- ISBN 978-0-935302-59-2 (pdf) 1. Science--Study and teaching. 2. Mathematics--Study and teaching. 3. Motivation in education. I. Renninger, K. Ann., editor. II. Nieswandt, Martina (Professor of education), editor.

III. Hidi, Suzanne, editor.

Q181.I6554 2015

507.1--dc23

2015009010

Dedication

We dedicate this book to our friend and colleague Dr. Lore Hoffmann. Her collaborations have guided many scholars, and her ideas continue to inspire research on interest and science education that bridges research and practice.

In dedicating this volume to Lore, we acknowledge her pioneering work in the study of interest, and science interest in particular. We specifically appreciate her efforts to focus serious attention on the possibilities for using research to understand and provide support for the development of female students’ interest in physics through curricular change and instructional practice. Lore’s research has contributed to developing understanding about the complexity of interest as a psychological variable and interests as possible triggers for engaging students in learning.

From 1972 until her retirement in 2002, Lore conducted research at the Leibniz Institute of Science and Mathematics Education at the University of Kiel, Germany. With her colleagues, she helped to organize two international conferences on interest: the First International Conference on Interest Research in 1984 and the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender in 1996.

It was in the spirit of Lore’s efforts that we organized an AERA Education Research Conference on Interest, the Self, and K–16 Mathematics and Science Learning that was held at Swarthmore College in May 2012. The conference brought together researchers with established research programs focusing on learners and their interest in mathematics and science. The participants, many of whom contributed to the present volume, came from different disciplines and through Skype from across the world to bridge research traditions, identify complementarities in their work, and consider next steps for future research and for practice.

Acknowledgments

The editors would like to thank the American Educational Research Association (AERA) for sponsoring an AERA Education Research Conference on Interest, the Self, and K–16 Mathematics and Science Learning that was held at Swarthmore College, May 6–8, 2012. Particular appreciation is extended to Felice Levine and the AERA Research Advisory Committee for their help in conceptualizing the design of the conference and their encouragement to use the present volume as a way to disseminate conference discussion. The editors also thank Felice and the AERA Books Editorial Board for their thoughtful support of this interdisciplinary volume. The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions and support provided by the external reviewers for volume chapters; Melissa Emmerson and William Lin, who helped with conference facilitation; and Rose Pozos-Brewer, who assisted in assembling the volume. In addition, the editors wish to acknowledge support for their work on this volume from the Senior College of the University of Toronto, the College of Education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Swarthmore College.

Contents

List of External Reviewers

Ashman, Adrian, University of Queensland, Australia

Bergin, David, University of Missouri

Boscolo, Pietro, University of Padova, Italy

Dohn, Niels Bonderup, Aarhus University, Denmark

Graeber, Wolfgang, Institute for Science Education, University of Kiel, Germany

Greene, Barbara A., University of Oklahoma

Grosshandler, Dean, University of Illinois at Chicago

Herrenkohl, Leslie, University of Washington

Holden, George W., Southern Methodist University

Horowitz, Gail, Brooklyn College

Murayama, Kou, University of Reading

Olsen, Ron, University of Oslo, Norway

Phillipson, Sivanes, Monash University–Peninsula Campus, Australia

Potvin, Geoff, Clemson University

Rogat, Toni, Rutgers University

Reeve, Johnmarshall, Korea University

Schauble, Leona, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University

Smith, Jessi L., University of Montana

Trautwin, Ulrich, University of Tuebingen, Germany

Wong, David, Michigan State University

Yarden, Anat, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel

Introduction

On the Power of Interest

K. ANN RENNINGER, MARTINA NIESWANDT, and SUZANNE HIDI

Educators, researchers, and, more recently, policy makers agree that understanding and working with learners’ interest in mathematics and science is important. This American Educational Research Association (AERA) volume reflects the emergent state of research on learner interest in mathematics and science learning and related activity in formal and informal contexts. It is the first to address the range of approaches to studying interest in K–16 mathematics and science learning; from the learning of children as young as those in kindergarten—the K of K–16—to that of undergraduate learners completing Grade 16. It includes chapters that focus on mathematics and/or science learning, as well as chapters addressing the integration of these disciplines with technology and engineering as STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).¹

The volume includes contributions from scholars who are working in various fields (e.g., motivation, mathematics education, science education, learning science, and developmental psychology) and have developed research programs addressing interest in mathematics and/or science learning. The contributors were participants in an AERA-sponsored conference on the volume’s topic,² a conference that was designed to enable distinct research groups to begin to bridge research traditions, identify complementarities in their work, and design steps for future research as well as for practice.

As Valsiner (1992) observed, the word interest is part of our everyday discourse and has different meanings, ranging from attraction to passion. The impact of this variety of meanings is that there are a number of conceptualizations and research methods for studying interest. These differences have consequences for how findings are interpreted and the educational implications that are then derived. The conceptualization and operationalization of interest are especially important for clarifying how learners might most effectively be supported to develop connections to the hard sciences (Becher & Trowler, 2001), disciplines that are rigorous, perceived to be difficult, and hierarchical in the sense that coursework builds on previous coursework and, frequently, missed content has to be mastered before new content can be learned (see related discussions in Hannover & Kessels, 2004; Kessels, Rau, & Hannover, 2006).

Despite differences in interest researchers’ focus (e.g., interest as development, interest as emotion, interest as task feature/environment, interest as value, interest as vocational interest), there are five characteristics of interest on which most of those studying interest as a distinct psychological variable tend to agree (Renninger & Hidi, 2011). First, interest always refers to interaction with particular content (e.g., mathematics, science). It describes focused attention, with development to continued engagement and reengagement. Second, interest exists in a particular relation between the learner and the environment; a learner has the potential for interest in his or her genetic makeup, and the content and the environment determine whether it is supported to develop or not. Third, interest has both affective and cognitive components, although the influence of each varies depending on the phase of interest development. In earlier phases of interest development, the affective component may be more salient because knowledge requirements are minimal, but for interest to develop, knowledge and value, in addition to affect, need to be present (Renninger & Hidi, 2011). Fourth, a learner may or may not be consciously aware that his or her interest has been triggered. Fifth, interest has a physiological or neurological basis (Hidi, 2006); given the relation of interest to the reward circuitry, Hidi (in press) and Ainley and Hidi (2014) have suggested that interest serves as a reward that leads the learner to seek resources and challenges.

The Importance of Learner Interest in Mathematics and Science

At this time, there is solid research evidence that the presence of interest positively influences learners’ attention, strategy use, and goal setting (for reviews, see Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Potvin & Hasni, 2014; Renninger & Hidi, 2011). With interest, learners are likely to be able to self-regulate and persist to complete tasks even when they are challenging, whereas learners with little interest typically have difficulty engaging and continuing to work with tasks (Nieswandt, 2007; Renninger & Hidi, 2002; Sansone, Fraughton, Zachary, Butner, & Heiner, 2011; see Renninger, 2010).

Studies have demonstrated that interest can be supported to develop even if a person initially has low self-efficacy, lacks academic goals for learning, and/or is not able to self-regulate (e.g., Hidi, Weiss, Berndorff, & Nolen, 1998; Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009; Nieswandt, 2007; Sansone et al., 2011). The need to develop learner interest has been implicated as critical if students are to continue in STEM (e.g., Maltese & Tai, 2011; Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2010). The Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K–12 Science Education (National Research Council [NRC], 2011) stressed that effective instruction capitalizes on students’ early interest and experiences, identifies and builds on what they know, and provides them with experiences to engage them in the practices of science and sustain their interest (p. 18).

The challenges of developing a principled understanding of mathematics and science disciplinary content have been the topic of international and national calls (e.g., European Commission, 2007; NRC, 2012; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006, 2007) and recent efforts to develop connections among STEM disciplines more generally (e.g., NRC, 2011, 2012). Citing the National Academies’ 2007 report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, business and industry leaders declared the small numbers of students in the United States who are interested in and choosing to pursue careers in STEM fields a national challenge (Business Higher Education Forum, 2010). Moreover, the National Science Board (2014) report indicated continued low representation in the science and engineering workforce of women and of historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, particularly Blacks and Hispanics.

Independently, the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010) issued a call to increase students’ interest in STEM majors and careers. They targeted student proficiency in STEM subjects, especially mathematics, observing that mathematics is necessary as a prerequisite for students who might select and then be successful in STEM majors. They also underscored the need for educators in formal and informal learning environments to understand what enables learners to develop their skills and knowledge in mathematics and science and the implications of this information for their work with them. Honey, Pearson, and Schweingruber (2014) corroborated this suggestion, noting in particular the need for a better understanding of the role of interest in STEM learning and the integration of STEM coursework.

Studying Interest: Interdisciplinary Considerations

To date, research on interest indicates that students can be supported to engage in mathematics and/or science through the provision of information about STEM careers (e.g., Hall, Dickerson, Batts, Kauffmann, & Bosse, 2011; Harackiewicz, Rozek, Hulleman, & Hyde, 2012), role models (Barron, Kennedy-Martin, Takeuchi, & Fithian, 2009; Weber, 2011, 2012), hands-on activities (e.g., Bulunuz, 2013; Dohn, 2011; Holstermann, Ainley, Grube, Roick, & Bögeholz, 2012; Swarat, Ortony, & Revelle, 2012), personally relevant topics (e.g., Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Fusco, 2001; Glynn, Taasoobshirazi, & Brickman, 2007; Palmer, 2009), novelty and challenge (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007), and transformative experience (e.g., Pugh, 2011).

When instruction allows it, students have also been found to promote and develop their own interests in the classroom (e.g., Jones & Wilkins, 2013; Pressick-Kilborn & Walker, 2002; Reeve, 2013). Similar findings have been reported both in online contexts (e.g., Baram-Tsabari, Sethi, Bry, & Yarden, 2006; Sansone, Smith, Thoman, & MacNamara, 2012) and in out-of-school or informal science settings (Alexander, Johnson, & Kelley, 2012; Azevedo, 2006, 2011; Crowley, Callanan, Jipson, Galco, Topping et al., 2001; Eagan, Hurtado, Change, Garcia, Herrera et al., 2013). Moreover, studies have also suggested that teachers’ interest in their students and knowledge of the discipline are likely to lead to explanations that their students understand (e.g., Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011; Xu, Coats, & Davidson, 2012).

As the present volume demonstrates, interest in mathematics and science has been studied in a variety of ways. In educational and social psychology, attention has tended to focus on interest as a psychological variable that develops and on its impact on other variables such as goals, self-efficacy, and self-regulation. Research in mathematics and science education, on the other hand, often focuses on fun or enjoyment as an indicator of engagement and usually targets assessment at a single point in time, rather than addressing how change may be supported to occur. However, because neuroscientific research now suggests that liking, wanting, and learning are separable psychological components of motivation (Berridge, 2012; Berridge, Robinson, & Aldridge, 2009), it cannot be assumed that changes in liking will necessarily lead to the development of interest (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002; Turner & Silvia, 2006).

Hidi and Renninger (2006; see also Renninger & Hidi, 2011) used findings from the empirical literature to identify four phases in the development of interest: triggered situational, maintained situational, emerging individual, and well-developed individual interest (see Table 1). In earlier phases of interest (triggered situational and maintained situational interest), learners need support to make real-world connections to tasks, whereas in later phases of interest (emerging individual and well-developed individual interest) those connections are in place, and learners are ready to work more directly with the challenges of the content; in fact, this is what learners in more developed phases of interest find useful (Renninger, 2010). Working with the Four-Phase Model of Interest Development, several authors in this volume target learners in earlier or later phases of interest development, and others focus on patterns that emerge in interest engagements across various development phases. Numerous authors address the state of interest and do not focus on development and/or work with the Four-Phase Model.

Table 1. The Four Phases of Interest Development: Definitions and Learner Characteristics

The Present Volume

The chapters of this volume provide a foundation for considering what we know and what still needs to be considered about the role of interest in K–16 mathematics and science learning. They represent diverse contributions from scholars whose research programs address interest using a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g., case studies, text analysis, large-scale survey, and mixed methods), varied populations (preschool children through practicing teachers), and settings representing cultural and social diversity, although diversity is not the sole focus of consideration.

The chapters take up unanswered questions that are critical for research and practice (see Renninger & Su, 2012). What in particular is important for educators to understand about interest in K–16 mathematics and science learning? Does the relation between the triggering of interest in K–16 mathematics and science classrooms vary if a person is in an earlier or a later phase of interest development? What contributes to whether or not interest in mathematics and science is maintained, once it is triggered? What supports shifts from earlier to later phases of interest development in mathematics and science?

The chapters point to parents or educators, at home, in school, or in out-of-school programs or groups, who can encourage thinking about and doing mathematics and/or science as a basis for supporting the development of mathematics and science interest. As the chapters suggest, social context provides models for seriously engaging mathematics and science content, as well as scaffolding to do so.

Some of the chapters detail interest as it is involved in facilitating learners’ work with mathematics and science (Alexander, Johnson, & Leibham; Azevedo; Crowley, Barron, Knutson, & Martin; Nieswandt & Horowitz; Pressick-Kilborn; Pugh, Linnenbrink-Garcia, Phillips, & Perez; Turner, Kackar, & Trucano); some report on contextual supports for this facilitation (Ainley & Ainley; Alexander et al.; Bulunuz & Jarrett; Glynn, Bryan, Brickman, & Armstrong; Maltese & Harsh; Reeve, Lee, & Wong); and others explore the implications of learners’ competence, domain identification, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and/or utility for how facilitation might be supported (Bong, Lee, & Woo; Durik, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz; Eccles, Fredricks, & Epstein; Hay, Callingham, & Carmichael; Jones, Ruff, & Osborne; Kim, Jiang, & Song; Renninger, Costello Kensey, Stevens, & Lehman; Sansone, Thoman, & Fraughton).

The chapters of the volume are organized into three sections based on the primary focus of the research questions they address: interest and other related motivational and demographic variables, subject matter and interest, and interest development. Researchers addressing interest and other variables suggest a reciprocal, or proportional, relation of the given variable (e.g., achievement, self-efficacy) for learners with less or more developed interest. Their focus differs from that of researchers who focus on questions about interest and subject matter. For the latter researchers, the focus is on task features and how to support learners in seeing these features. Although this group of researchers recognizes the potential of interest to develop, their research targets support for learners to attend to tasks that are presented. Finally, researchers whose questions address interest and development focus on more developed interest and the factors that enable the development of later phases of interest. Some chapters draw on related models to consider the relation between interest and development (e.g., expectancy-value [Eccles et al.], the MUSIC Model [Jones et al.], and Teaching for Transformative Experience [Pugh et al.]).

The content of the chapters that make up each section is overviewed in more detail next.

Section 1: Interest and Other Motivational and Demographic Variables

The chapters addressing interest and other motivational and demographic variables describe findings from studies in which interest was studied as an independent variable that relates to other variables such as achievement (Kim et al.; Renninger et al.; Sansone et al.); connections to experience (Ainley & Ainley), competence (Durik et al.; Kim et al.; Reeve et al.), and disciplinary understanding (Renninger et al.); gender (Bong et al.; Renninger et al.); self-efficacy (Bong et al.; Renninger et al.); self-regulation (Sansone et al.); and social class (Renninger et al.).

In their chapter, Ainley and Ainley use data from their own and others’ research programs to suggest that the developing and maintaining of science interest depends both on opportunities to engage and reengage with the content of interest and on support for taking up those opportunities. The authors point specifically to experiences of young children in the family, features of tasks or contexts, and classroom experiences such as those that include talking with scientists. Similarly, Reeve et al.’s chapter elaborates on the positive feelings that accompany engagements that are well facilitated, and Sansone et al.’s chapter describes their participants’ experience of interest and consequently their abilities to self-regulate, as linked to both the relation between interpersonal goals and activity and the degree to which others (teacher, peers, and parents) are responsive to the activity that they find interesting.

Renninger et al.’s chapter further considers the perceptions of science held by learners with less and more developed interest in science. Their data suggest that (a) learners with equally strong standardized achievement profiles do not all have more developed interest in science, (b) gender may be a more influential factor for those with less developed interest in science than for those with more developed interest, and (c) students with more and less developed interest in science may see the same flaws in classroom practice but those with less developed interest are either less willing or less able to seek additional resources such as out-of-school science experiences than are those with more developed interest.

In their chapter, Durik et al. conclude on the basis of extensive experimental work that learners must focus on task content in order to develop their interest. Their findings indicate that those with more developed interest are oriented on the task and may only need opportunities to engage with the content, whereas learners with less developed interest need support to attend to the task. In addition, Durik et al. further note the need to attend to the selfconcepts of learners with less developed interest since these are typically poorly developed.

Kim et al.’s chapter explores changes in the relation of interest in mathematics, utility value, perceived competence, engagement, and achievement across grade levels. The authors find that for middle and high school students who rate themselves as low on perceived competence, interest in mathematics should be promoted rather than the utility of mathematics; whereas for middle and high school students who rate themselves as high on perceived competence, the utility value of mathematics should be emphasized. Similarly, based on analysis of two national data sets of Korean youths’ work with mathematics and science, Bong et al. find that interest is a more powerful determinant of subsequent selfefficacy than self-efficacy is of subsequent interest. They further note that, given the correlations between performance in mathematics and science and the predictive utility of prior interest for self-efficacy, it is imperative to support students to go beyond frequent success experiences in these disciplines and develop their interest.

Section 2: Interest and Subject Matter

The chapters that focus on interest and subject matter examine what is needed to support learner interest in the tasks of mathematics and/or science and/or point to the critical role of the responsive educator in engaging learners in such tasks.³ These researchers are particularly concerned about how to support educators to increase their students’ learning of mathematics and/or science and/or to develop their interest in this subject matter.

As Baram-Tsabari points out, there is often a gap between what the curriculum offers and what students want to learn. She notes, as do Glynn and his colleagues, that students often have questions that are not addressed in the courses they take, which results in a gap between school science and student interest. In addition to student interest, this gap may reflect discrepancies in how tasks are presented and how students respond to triggers for interest—whether the tasks are group projects or laboratory work, in school or out of school (Maltese & Harsh; Nieswandt & Horowitz). The chapters each point to the importance of educators as a potential support for the development of mathematics and science interest and the need for educators to develop enough content knowledge, if they do not already have it, to be able to support their pupils to have fun with the discipline (Bulunuz & Jarrett). In addition, professional development is a suggested vehicle for supporting educators to understand student motivation and its role in the development of student interest and learning (Hay et al.; Turner et al.; see also Ainley & Ainley, Section 1, and Pressick-Kilborn, Section 3).

In her chapter, Baram-Tsabari describes a programmatic study of questioning in contexts as varied as the biology classroom, the online Ask-a-Scientist site, and Google inquiries. She describes findings indicating that voluntary information-seeking is an outcome of the triggering of situational interest; she uses these to demonstrate the importance of educators responding to potential interests of students in their curriculum planning. When learners’ interest is triggered, they have questions to which they want answers; their interest develops, and they become engaged as learners.

Glynn and his colleagues also find that the content of particular topics (e.g., humans, ethical issues) is strongly related to interest, and to the forms of intrinsic motivation that together with self-efficacy predict school achievement. Based on findings from their Science Motivation Questionnaire, they argue that student interest should inform curricular development because developing interest promotes intrinsic motivation and mastery experiences that, in turn, can enable the learner to develop feelings of self-efficacy and sustain engagement.

Nieswandt and Horowitz address the importance of task features in laboratory activities assigned to undergraduate chemistry students. The results of their studies indicate that the inclusion of features such as suspense, challenge, personal relevance, and choice has the potential to trigger interest. Their results also suggest that students’ prior content knowledge, together with the quality of instructors’ scaffolding, informs whether triggered interest is then maintained.

Like the Nieswandt and Horowitz chapter, the chapters by Hay et al. and Turner et al. underscore the role of the instructor in supporting learners to work with task content. Hay et al. describe findings from a large-scale project addressing the development of students’ interest and self-efficacy for statistical literacy, statistical knowledge, and statistical comprehension. The results indicate that teachers could trigger student interest for statistics through activities that promote relevance and meaning making. Like the findings reported by Glynn et al., (see also those of Bong et al. and Durik et al. in Section 1), their findings suggest that self-efficacy in statistics is a significant predictor of achievement and that level of interest is strongly associated with level of self-efficacy.

With the premise that interest is fostered when students can make connections among ideas and with the world, the chapters by Turner et al. and Bulunuz and Jarrett consider what those who work with students might benefit from understanding. Turner et al. focus on how two teachers supported their students to make connections with the content of their classes. The teacher who was able to support her students’ development of interest was the one who used strategies to trigger their interest, by supporting them to make connections between their own lives and the science they were learning. She also used the students’ questions as a way to help make science meaningful. As Turner et al. observe, teachers need to both understand and be willing to take responsibility for student motivation, in addition to attending to the conceptual development of their students.

Bulunuz and Jarrett’s research also focuses on the connections that students and teachers are able to make with science content. They find that working with science content is important and suggest that opportunities to play, have fun, and explore are task features that serve to trigger value for, and the science interest of, college science majors, scientists, and preschool and elementary school preservice teachers. They find that the learners who are supported to play, have fun, and explore science content are also those who begin to develop interest.

Maltese and Harsh conclude their chapter by suggesting that there may be an interaction between the phase of learners’ STEM interest and the inquiry level of the STEM-related experiences in which they are involved. The authors review four distinct data sets addressing K–16 science learning that include differing levels of inquiry. Together the studies suggest the potential advantage of initially supporting learners and/or their instructors with less developed interest to connect to tasks that involve more closed inquiry and then adjusting the openness of the inquiry of the tasks as interest develops.

Section 3: Interest Development

The chapters of the third section concern interest development. They describe studies that contribute to understanding specific aspects of interest development. Alexander et al. and Crowley et al. consider the development of science interest in young children; they explain the role of early experience as formative, characterized by intensity of focus, and as complemented by involvement in activities in school and out of school. Azevedo extends this description to provide details about the process of triggering and sustaining interest in a study of an after-school program and the hobby of model rocketry. He points to tailored practice as essential to the development of interest. Similarly, in detailing her work with Kate, a sixth-grade student whose interest in science shifted from less to more developed, Pressick-Kilborn describes how tailored practice with science can be facilitated.

Jones et al. describe transitions in the development of learning in science as a progressive process too, one that includes increasing domain identification. They detail the relation between the learner’s developing domain identification and the learner’s transition from less to more developed phases of mathematics and science interest. Pugh and his colleagues also point to the transition as occurring through transformative experiences in the science classroom. They describe characteristics of transformative experiences that trigger and then support learners to sustain and develop their interest. Finally, Eccles and her colleagues describe the relations between her Expectancy-Value Theoretical Model and the Four-Phase Model of Interest Development, pointing to the complementarity of these models as descriptions of motivation once interest development has been triggered and sustained.

In their consideration of interest and development, Alexander et al. describe a longitudinal study of young, middle-class children and how their interests are supported to develop at home and in school through their interactions with others such as parents, educators, and peers. The authors describe the shifting roles and responsibilities of parents and children in maintaining science-related interests and how these form the foundation for the development of science interest. In his chapter, Azevedo also details shifting patterns in the ways in which high school students and adults pursue interest, but the shifts and turns he describes are less about interactions with others and more about increasingly detailed and idiosyncratic work with content in which these older learners with more developed interest engage.

In their chapter, Crowley et al. describe the resources that provide a pathway from interest to disciplinary expertise and engagement. Based on retrospective life-history interviews with adult scientists and interviews with students of middle school age, they show how science interest in everyday activity is extended and deepened over time. Their results point to the possibility of developing interest prior to formal schooling. And, like Alexander et al. and Azevedo, they describe learners who have more developed interest as seeking and creating their own opportunities to learn.

Pressick-Kilborn further nuances this description of interest development by focusing attention on the processes of canalization and connectedness, whereby the larger social context informs and supports (or does not support) the possibility that the learner will make connections to content. She considers how learners are supported to make meaning as they engage with triggers for interest over time, as their interest develops. Through support to engage and make meaning of the triggers for interest in the classroom, Kate’s experience of science was transformed, and her interest deepened and developed.

Pressick-Kilborn’s description of her work with Kate is illustrative of points included in Pugh et al.’s description of transformative educational experiences. As Pugh et al. explain, the Teaching for Transformative Experience model includes both the presence of interest and the catalyzing of deeper interest through specific teacher-facilitated experiences that highlight the relevance and meaning of the content being addressed. It is a teacher- and content-centered approach with the goal of supporting students to be active, involved, and intentional by enabling them to develop value for science. Ideally, the teacher supports the learner to reframe his or her understanding of science and/or provides a model for this. The role of the social agent, here the teacher, in supporting or facilitating transformative experience has parallels to the development of interest as discussed in the Four-Phase Model. However, Pugh et al.’s model is specific to teachers and school-based settings, whereas though the facilitation of interest development may be undertaken and/or supported through experiences at school, it is not limited to that context.

The perception of the self in this process of interest development is focal in the chapters by Jones et al. and Eccles et al. In Jones et al., the transition from less to more developed interest is described as a process of developing domain identification: the extent to which students define themselves in terms of a domain, such as science or mathematics, through their participation in that domain. Jones et al. suggest that domain identification, and the transition from less to more developed interest, can be supported using Jones’s (2009) MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation, which involves (a) empowering students, (b) enabling them to see the usefulness of the domain, (c) supporting success, (d) triggering interest, and (e) fostering a sense of caring and belonging. Like Pugh et al.’s discussion of transformative educational experiences, the MUSIC Model also presumes facilitation by the educator and the meta-awareness of the student who is being supported to experience a different type of participation in the domain.

Similarly, in their discussion of how youths become intensely interested in and committed to activities such as science and mathematics, Eccles et al. consider the relation between the Expectancy-Value Theoretical Model and the Four-Phase Model of Interest Development. They suggest that understanding the motivational origins of different rates of participation in STEM fields is critical and that the two models provide similar portraits of what is involved in developed engagement in STEM. They also note that the process of enabling engagement based on Expectancy-Value Theory and the Four-Phase Model of Interest Development differs such that in Expectancy-Value Theory, learners are assumed to be meta-aware of their activity. This is not a necessary expectation of the Four-Phase Model; learners may be meta-aware of their interest, but it is also likely that they are engaged and not stopping to reflect on their engagement.

Conclusions

This volume was compiled to enable the dissemination of findings concerning the power of interest that have potential impact on practice, research, and policy. No grand theory is posited; rather, the chapters provide a basis for appreciating the essential role of other people, including parents, educators, and peers, in enabling interest to develop and deepen—and the benefits of doing so.

In the concluding chapter, we draw on the chapters of this volume to describe the present state of research on interest in mathematics and science and related activities. We identify variation in the conceptualization and measurement of interest that reflects differences in research questions. We also note themes that emerge across the chapters, including the roles of early childhood experience and support by other people, triggering and maintaining interest in older populations, teachers and interest development, choice and the development of interest, gender and interest in mathematics and science, difficulty and interest in mathematics and science, self-efficacy, self-concept, and interest development.

Notes

1. All references to the contributing authors’ work refer to their chapters in this volume, unless otherwise noted.

2. The conference was organized by K. Ann Renninger and Martina Nieswandt and was held at Swarthmore College in May 2012. The conference brought together research groups that at that time had established research programs targeting the study of interest in mathematics and/or science learning and related activity.

3. Most of the chapters in this section of the volume address science and interest and as such reflect the focus of developed research programs at the time of the 2012 AERA annual meeting. Only Hay et al.’s research addresses student work with mathematics (statistics). Turner and her colleagues’ chapter focuses on two cases: the instructional practices of a middle school mathematics teacher and a middle school science teacher.

References

Ainley, M., & Hidi, S. (2014). Interest and enjoyment. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 205–227). New York: Taylor and Francis.

Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., & Kelley, K. (2012). Longitudinal analysis of the relations between opportunities to learn about science and the development of interests related to science. Science Education, 96, 763–786. doi:10.1002/sce.21018

Azevedo, F. S. (2006). Personal excursions: Investigating the dynamics of student engagement. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 57–98. doi:10.1007/s10758/sce.21018

Azevedo, F. S. (2011). Lines of practice: A practice-centered theory of interest relationships. Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 147–184. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.556834

Baram-Tsabari, A., Sethi, R. J., Bry, L., & Yarden, A. (2006). Using questions sent to an Ask-a-Scientist site to identify children’s interests in science. Science Education, 90(6), 1050–1072. doi:10.1002/sce.20163

Barron, B., Kennedy-Martin, C., Takeuchi, L., & Fithian, R. (2009). Parents as learning partners in the development of technological fluency. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 55–77. doi:10.1162/ijlm.2009.0021

Basu, S. J., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 466–489. doi:10.1002/tea.20143

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press/SRHE.

Berridge, K. C. (2012). From prediction error to incentive salience: Mesolimbic computation of reward motivation. European Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 1124–1143. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.07990.x

Berridge, K. C., Robinson, T. E., & Aldridge, I. W. (2009). Dissecting components of reward: Liking, wanting, and learning. Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 9, 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2008.12.014

Bulunuz, M. (2013). Teaching science through play in kindergarten: Does integrated play and science instruction build understanding? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 226–249. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2013.789195

Business Higher Education Forum. (2010). Increasing the number of STEM graduates: Insights from the U.S. STEM Education & Modeling Project. Washington, DC.: Author.

Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J. L., Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent–child activity. Science Education, 85(6), 712–732. doi:10.1002/sce.1035

Dohn, N. B. (2011). Situational interest of high school students who visit an aquarium. Science Education, 95, 337–357. doi:10.1002/sce.20425

Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How personal interest moderated the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 597–610. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.597

Eagan, K., Hurtado, S., Chang, M. J., Garcia, G. A., Herrera, F. A., & Garibay, J. C. (2013). Making a difference in science education: The impact of undergraduate research programs. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 683–713. doi: Doi 10.3102/0002831213482038

European Commission (2007). EUR22845—Science Education NOW: A renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 860–877. doi:10.1002/tea.1036

Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning science: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1088–1107. doi:10.1002/tea.20181

Hall, C., Dickerson, J., Batts, D., Kauffmann, P., & Bosse, M. (2011). Are we missing opportunities to encourage interest in STEM fields? Journal of Technology Education, 23(1). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v23n1/

Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices: Why German high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 51–67. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.002

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562–575. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.562

Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. R., 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, 40. doi:10.1177/0956797611435530

Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1, 69–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001

Hidi, S. (in press). Revisiting the role of rewards in motivation and learning: Implications of neuroscientific findings. Educational Psychology Review.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

Hidi, S., Weiss, J., Berndorff, D., & Nolen, J. (1998). The role of gender, instruction and a cooperative learning technique in science education across formal and informal settings. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender (pp. 215–227). Kiel, Germany: IPN.

Holstermann, N., Ainley, M., Grube, D., Roick, T., & Bögeholz, S. (2012). The specific relationship between disgust and interest: Relevance during biology class dissections and gender differences. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 185–192. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.005

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067

Jones, B. D., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2013). Testing the MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation through confirmatory factor analysis. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 33(4), 482–503. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.785044

Kessels, U., Rau, M., & Hannover, B. (2006). What goes well with physics? Measuring and altering the image of science. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 761–780. doi:10.1348/000709905X59961

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education Policy, 95, 887–907. doi:10.1002/sce.20441

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K–12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K–12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014 (NSB 14-01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Nieswandt, M. (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908–937. doi:10.1002/tea.20169

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies: Policy report. Paris: OECD Global Science Forum.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world: Vol. 1. Analysis. Paris: Author.

Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147–165.

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K–12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129. doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.881626

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K–12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stem-ed-final.pdf

Pressick-Kilborn, K., & Walker, R. A. (2002). The social construction of interest in a learning community. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 152–182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Pugh, K. J. (2011). Transformative experience: An integrative construct in the spirit of Deweyan pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 46, 107–121. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.558817

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0032690

Renninger, K. A. (2010). Working with and cultivating the development of interest, self-efficacy, and self-regulation. In D. Preiss & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 107–138). New York: Springer.

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173–195). New York: Academic.

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587723

Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development. In R. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 167–187). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rotgans, J. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). The role of teachers in facilitating situational interest in an active-learning classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 37–42. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.025

Sansone, C., Fraughton, T. B., Zachary, J. L., Butner, J., & Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why and how. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 59(2), 199–212. doi:10.1007.s11423-011-9193-6

Sansone, C., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., & MacNamara, A. (2012). Regulating interest when learning online: Potential motivation and performance trade-offs. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 141–149. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.10.004

Sjøberg, S. S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: An overview and key findings. Retrieved from http://roseproject.no/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf

Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515–537. doi:10.1002/tea.21010

Turner, S. A., Jr., & Silvia, P. J. (2006). Must things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures. Emotion, 6(4), 670–674.

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. 27–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum.

Weber, K. (2011). Role models and informal STEM-related activities positively impact female interest in STEM. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(3), 18–21.

Weber, K. (2012). Gender differences in interest, perceived personal capacity, and participation in STEM-related activities. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 18–33. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v24n1/pdf/weber.pdf

Xu, J., Coats, L. T., & Davidson, M. L. (2012). Promoting student interest in science: The perspectives of exemplary African American teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 124–154. doi:10.3102/0002831211426200

Section 1

Interest and Other Motivational and Demographic Variables

Chapter 1

Early Science Learning Experiences: Triggered and Maintained Interest

MARY AINLEY and JOHN AINLEY

A key question for science educators is how to sustain interest in novel or intriguing scientific phenomena so that interest in science is maintained, with the potential to develop into a more enduring interest as manifested in choice of studies in senior high school and tertiary programs. According to Hidi and Renninger (2006), progress through the phases of interest development depends on the availability of opportunities to engage and reengage with content of the interest, and on support for taking up those opportunities. In this chapter, we investigate the validity of this proposition, examining evidence from early childhood studies, classroom experiences, and large-scale longitudinal studies.

Findings from young children’s expressions of interest and from research into family factors associated with adolescents’ educational development point to the important role of parents and teachers in identifying children’s interests and supporting them through provision of opportunities to engage with the interest. When we examine the evidence from classroom and curriculum research, we arrive at the same conclusion. For students to have more than a fleeting interest in science, they require classroom experiences that provide opportunities to engage with science activities that connect with their own experiences. Not the least of these is the opportunity to experience science through exposure to scientists and the work of scientists. Findings from a number of studies support the contention that early experiences with learning in general and science in particular underpin later choices—decisions to participate in science activities both in school and in the community as well as choices to study science at higher levels.

This wide-ranging evidence points to early childhood experience and to later classroom exposure to science in real-world environments as key to the development of interest in science. When opportunities for triggering interest in science, and ongoing support for maintenance of that interest in science, are features of these environments, students are likely to choose science studies in their last years of high school and to make science a part of their lifelong learning and activities.

Introduction

The Global Science Forum (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006) has responded to the declining percentage of students studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in many economies with a call to make science and technology studies more interesting. The forum observed that interest in science and technology emerges early in primary school and remains stable between the ages of 11 and 15 years but declines beyond 15 years of age. They recommended attention to curricula to better reflect modern science and technology and its social relevance, as well as enhancing the scientific and technical knowledge of teachers. This response focuses attention on the content of science and technology studies, with the implication that if the prospective content is sufficiently interesting, students will choose to study science. But what makes science and technology studies interesting? Can science and technology studies be designed in such a way that all students will have their interest triggered? How can this triggered interest be sustained, allowing access to information that will expand their knowledge and understanding of scientific phenomena?

In this chapter, we focus on the development of interests in two different but related ways. One perspective on interest development directs attention to the course of development of the interest itself. Distinctions are described in line with the successive phases of interest development proposed in Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) Four-Phase Model of Interest Development: triggered situational interest, maintained situational interest, emerging individual interest, and well-developed individual interest. According to Hidi and Renninger, progress through these phases of interest development depends on the availability of opportunities to engage and reengage with interest content. In the initial phases, this requires high levels of support, decreasing as the interest moves toward becoming an individual interest. We examine how opportunity and support are conditions promoting interest development.

Questions of triggering and maintaining interest in scientific phenomena direct attention to the immediate learning situation. What specific curriculum design and classroom practices provide opportunities to trigger interest in science and/or support its maintenance? Factors associated with triggering situational interest have been well documented (e.g., Hidi, 1990; Schraw & Lehman, 2001; Wade, 2001). When combined with the literature on curiosity (e.g., Berlyne, 1960; Cordova & Lepper, 1996), the research makes clear that encounters with novel or intriguing scientific phenomena will attract students’ attention and generate questions and exploratory activities focused on the novel or intriguing phenomenon. Interactions with interest content are likely to result in knowledge acquisition. For example, Palmer (2009) showed that although there was considerable variation in the level of situational interest associated with different types of activities, the strongest trigger for situational interest was novelty. However, for many students, the novelty quickly wears off, and they disengage. This is the problem of maintaining or sustaining the triggered interest.

A second perspective on interest development concerns the role of early experiences for later expression of interest in science. Which early experiences contribute to the likelihood that students will have their interest triggered by novel scientific phenomena? Which early experiences contribute to the maintenance of students’ interest beyond the initial triggering, allowing the development of an interest in science based on a strong core of scientific knowledge and understanding? What does it take for interest in science to be maintained so that it informs lifestyle and career choices?

In this chapter, we present research findings concerning young children’s expressions of interest, family contexts, and classroom experiences to explore how opportunity and support contribute to the development of interest in science. We then examine findings on students’ participation intentions and choice of studies in secondary school from research studies with participants representing broad student populations.

The Role of Opportunity and Support

Early Experiences and Interest in Science

It is clear from the literature that persistent interests do occur in very young children (e.g., Alexander, Johnson, Leibham, & Kelley, 2008; Renninger & Wozniak, 1985). The intensity and extent of attention to a particular category of objects or activities in some young children have given rise to the phrase extremely intense interests (DeLoache, Simcock, & Macari, 2007). For the purposes of this discussion, we explore what is known about young children’s interests that might be precursors for the development of sustained interest in science.

Early parenting influences. Research into curiosity and exploratory behavior in very young children has identified how particular types of interaction between parents or caregivers and children predict later behavior. In an early study of curiosity, Saxe and Stollack (1971) reported that children’s exploration and information seeking were contingent on mothers’ displays of positive feeling and curiosity toward the novel object. More recent findings (Chak, 2002) suggest that parental support of focused exploration is associated with knowledge and information acquisition. Findings from Alexander, Johnson, and colleagues’ longitudinal study (see Alexander, Johnson, & Kelley, 2012; Leibham, Alexander, Johnson, Neitzel, & Reis-Henrie, 2005) of the development of interests also highlight the importance of early interactions with parents that focus and support the exploration and engagement of young children in their preferred activities. Leibham et al. (2005) reported that the difference in parental behavior between four- and five-year-old children whose interests persisted over the following 24 months and those whose interests were relatively short term has more to do with acknowledging the child’s continuing interest rather than with fulfilling a particular quota of interest-related experiences (p. 410). This parental acknowledgment emphasized academic stimulation and curiosity and the provision of materials in the home related to the child’s expressed interests. Neitzel, Alexander, and Johnson (2008) reported that these types of interest can be seen in the information children contribute to discussions and activities in their kindergarten classes. Children’s choices of activities in the early school years suggest that some forms of early interests appear to set children on a course of interacting with experience in ways that support