Promoting motivation through mode of instruction: The relationship between use of affective teaching techniques and motivation to learn science.

摘要

The purpose of this study is to add to what we know about the affective domain and to create a valid instrument for future studies. The Motivation to Learn Science (MLS) Inventory is based on Krathwohl’s Taxonomy of Affective Behaviors (Krathwohl et al., 1964).;The results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) demonstrated that the MLS Inventory is a valid and reliable instrument. Therefore, the MLS Inventory is a uni-dimensional instrument composed of 9 items with convergent validity (no divergence). The instrument had a high Chronbach Alpha value of .898 during the EFA analysis and .919 with the CFA analysis. Factor loadings on the 9 items ranged from .617 to .800. Standardized regression weights ranged from .639 to .835 in the CFA analysis. Various indices (RMSEA = .033; NFI = .987; GFI = .985; CFI = 1.000) demonstrated a good fitness of the proposed model.;Hierarchical linear modeling was used to statistical analyze data where students' motivation to learn science scores (level-1) were nested within teachers (level-2). The analysis was geared toward identifying if teachers’ use of affective behavior (a level-2 classroom variable) was significantly related with students’ MLS scores (level-1 criterion variable). Model testing proceeded in three phases: intercept-only model, means-as-outcome model, and a random-regression coefficient model. The intercept-only model revealed an intra-class correlation coefficient of .224 with an estimated reliability of .726. Therefore, data suggested that only 22.4% of the variance in MLS scores is between-classes and the remaining 77.6% is at the student-level. Due to the significant variance in MLS scores, X2(62.756, p<.0001), teachers’ TAB scores were added as a level-2 predictor. The regression coefficient was non-significant (p>.05). Therefore, the teachers’ self-reported use of affective behaviors was not a significant predictor of students’ motivation to learn science.