ArticlePDF Available

Development of the science teaching anxiety scale for preservice elementary teachers: A Rasch analysis

Authors:

Abstract

Science teaching anxiety is negative emotion that inhibits a teacher's ability to start, proceed, or finish a science teaching task. Despite its detrimental effects on teachers' science teaching quality and practices, there is limited research on science teaching anxiety. To advance research in this area, there is a need for a psychometrically sound instrument assessing teachers' science teaching anxiety. This study presents the development and psychometric properties of the Science Teaching Anxiety Scale (STAS) in preservice elementary teachers (N = 191) using a Rasch analysis. In addition, it examines the relationships among science teaching anxiety, science interest, and science teaching efficacy (self‐efficacy and outcome expectancy). Results indicated that the STAS has promising validity and reliability for use in future research. Moreover, science teaching anxiety and science interest were significant predictors of teaching self‐efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. Implications for researchers, teacher educators, and individuals who work with new teachers are discussed.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
1
Development of the Science Teaching Anxiety Scale for Preservice Elementary Teachers: A
Rasch Analysis
Elena Novak
1
, Ilker Soyturk, Shannon Navy
Citation: Novak, E., Soyturk, I., & Navy, S., (2022). Development of the Science Teaching
Anxiety Scale for Preservice Elementary Teachers: A Rasch Analysis. Science Education, 1-26.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21707
Abstract
Science teaching anxiety is negative emotion that inhibits a teacher’s ability to start, proceed, or
finish a science teaching task. Despite its detrimental effects on teachers’ science teaching
quality and practices, there is limited research on science teaching anxiety. To advance research
in this area, there is a need for a psychometrically sound instrument assessing teachers’ science
teaching anxiety. This study presents the development and psychometric properties of the
Science Teaching Anxiety Scale (STAS) in preservice elementary teachers (N = 191) using a
Rasch analysis. In addition, it examines the relationships among science teaching anxiety,
science interest, and science teaching efficacy (self-efficacy and outcome expectancy). Results
indicated that the STAS has promising validity and reliability for use in future research.
Moreover, science teaching anxiety and science interest were significant predictors of teaching
self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. Implications for researchers, teacher educators,
and individuals who work with new teachers are discussed.
Keywords: science teaching anxiety, science teaching efficacy, science interest, elementary
preservice teachers, Rasch analysis
1
Kent State University, School of Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Studies
150 Terrace Drive, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242-0001, USA
elannovak@gmail.com
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
2
Introduction
Since No Child Left Behind in 2001, schools in the United States (US) have almost
exclusively focused on testing and improving students’ test scores (Kim et al., 2017). This policy
context of standards, testing, and accountability places pressure on schools and teachers to meet
the standards and make adequate yearly progress as measured by student scores on state exams.
Indeed, current accountability policies impact teachers’ well-being as indicated by stress,
burnout, and anxiety which have been attributed to teacher turnover (e.g., Ryan et al., 2017;
Saeki et al., 2018; von der Embse et al., 2015).
Specifically, anxiety can impact teaching and behavior in a classroom. It is a negative
activating emotion that produces task-irrelevant cognitive activity, thus draining available
cognitive resources for the task at hand (Pekrun, 2006; Zaccoletti, Altoè, & Mason, 2020). In
science education, anxiety is investigated as science anxiety or science teaching anxiety. Science
anxiety refers to a feeling of aversion to scientists, science concepts, and science activities
(Mallow, 1981) and can be caused by occupational stereotypes of scientists as well as prior
learning experiences in science (Bursal, 2012; Mallow et al., 2010; Ritchie, 2013; Udo et al.,
2004). Science teaching anxiety inhibits a teacher’s ability to start, proceed, or finish a science
teaching task (Bursal & Paznokas, 2006; Gardner & Leak, 1994). It has a negative, long-lasting
influence on teachers and their instructional practices that can lead to “lifelong teaching
behaviors that are inappropriate, ineffective, and detrimental to one’s health” (Gardner & Leak,
1994, p. 30). Both science anxiety and science teaching anxiety, as emotions, are inseparable
from actions in teaching and learning science content (Bellocchi, 2019; Davidson et al., 2020;
Tobin, 2012).
Elementary inservice and preservice teachers, specifically, often express negative
emotions toward science and tend to avoid teaching science (Avery & Meyer, 2012; Kazempour
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
3
& Sadler, 2015). This avoidance is concerning given the emphasis in the latest science education
standards for elementary teachers to not only teach the various science domains (i.e., life science,
physical science, and earth and space science) but also incorporate engineering into their
instruction (NGSS Lead States, 2013; NRC, 2012). Avoidance to teach science oftentimes stems
from a lack of knowledge of science content and may signal science teaching anxiety (Lombardi
& Sinatra, 2013; Maier et al., 2013; Moser, 2007; Westerback & Long, 1990). However,
avoidance behavior alone is insufficient for understanding science teaching anxiety and more
measures of science teaching anxiety are needed, e.g., emotional responses to various teaching
situations (Maier et al., 2013).
Therefore, the goal of this study is to examine preservice elementary teachers’ emotional
responses to planning and teaching situations related to science instruction. Toward this end, we
developed and validated the Science Teaching Anxiety Scale (STAS) for measuring science
teaching anxiety with preservice elementary teachers, and examined the relationships between
science teaching anxiety, interest in science, science teaching self-efficacy, and science teaching
outcome expectancy. Unlike previous studies that assessed science teaching anxiety using
general anxiety instruments, e.g., Speilberger’s (1983) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the STAS
focuses on specific planning and teaching events associated with science instruction. Indeed,
valid, reliable, and context-relevant measurement instruments, i.e., instruments developed to fit
the target instructional context (such as science teaching) and validated with the target audience
(such as preservice elementary teachers), are particularly needed to assess science teaching
anxiety. Moreover, “there is urgent need for more sophisticated measures of emotions and their
components, as well as methods for analyzing multivariate functional relationships over time”
(Pekrun, 2006, p. 331).
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
4
Framing the Study
Emotions are viewed as multifaceted, coordinated processes that include affective,
motivational, cognitive, expressive, and peripheral physiological dimensions (Frijda, 1986;
Scherer, 2005). Affective processes play a central role in emotions; they are assumed to have
physiological connections to subsystems of the limbic system (Fellous & LeDoux, 2005). For
example, anxiety can be manifested through the feelings of uneasiness (affective dimension),
avoidance behavior (motivational), worries (cognitive), distressed facial expression (expressive),
and peripheral physiological signals (physiological) (Pekrun, 2006).
Pekrun (2006) classified anxiety as an achievement emotion that is directly connected to
achievement outcomes or activities. According to the Control-Value Theory (CVT) of
achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun & Perry, 2014), emotions are manifested based on
the degree of (a) perceived control over achievement activities or achievement outcomes and (b)
perceived value of these activities. The CVT integrates prominent theories of emotions and
learning to facilitate research across different educational domains and research paradigms by
specifying relationships between antecedents, emotions, and outcomes of emotions. The CVT
postulates that perceived control over achievement activities and outcomes positively affects
positive emotions and negatively affects negative emotions, except for boredom. For instance,
teachers who believe that effective teaching can enhance student learning (control appraisal) hold
action-control expectancies (such as science teaching outcome expectancy). Action-control
expectancies imply that a teacher’s actions will produce positive impact in the classroom
(Pekrun, 2006). Moreover, value attached to these actions and outcomes can amplify emotions.
For example, if a teacher is not confident teaching a complex science concept (antecedent), it
will lead to science teaching anxiety (emotion). The feelings of anxiety will be amplified if the
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
5
teacher values high quality science instruction. Once feelings of science teaching anxiety
manifest, they can impact the teacher’s cognition, teaching self-efficacy, well-being, motivation,
and classroom instruction (outcomes of emotions) (Pekrun, 2006). Figure 1 shows CVT’s
reciprocal linkages between antecedents, emotions, and effects and how the CVT was applied in
the present study’s context, i.e., preservice elementary science teacher education.
Instruction
Value induction
Goal structures
Expectations
Achievement:
- Feedback
- Consequences
Environment
Control:
- Expectancies
- Attributions
Values:
- Intrinsic
- Extrinsic
Appraisal
- Cognitive resources
- Self-efficacy
- Self-regulation
- Motivation to learn
- Engagement
- Learning strategies
Achievement
Learning &
Achievement
CVT: Reciprocal Linkages Between Antecedents, Emotions, and Effects (Pekrun, 2006)
Emotions
Preservice
elementary
science teacher
education
Environment
Science
teaching
outcome
expectancy
Appraisal
Science teaching
self-efficacy
Learning &
Achievement
Science teaching anxiety (negative
activating emotion)
Science interest (positive activating
emotion)
Emotions
Current Study: CVT in Preservice Elementary Science Teacher Education
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
6
Figure 1. Application of the CVT in preservice elementary science teacher education. Adapted
from “The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and
Implications for Educational Research and Practice,” by Pekrun, R., 2006, Educational
Psychology Review, 18(4), 315-341, and “A circumplex model of affect,” by Russell, J. A., 1980,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178.
Pekrun (2006) argued that “emotions are of primary educational importance, for two
reasons. First, as implied by CVT, emotions can affect [teachers’] interest, engagement,
achievement, and personality development, as well as the social climate in classrooms and
educational institutions […]. Second […] emotions are central to psychological health and well-
being, implying that they should be regarded as important educational outcomes in themselves,
independent of their functional relevance.” (p. 333-334). Using CVT, this study investigated the
relationships between science teaching anxiety, interest in science, and science teaching efficacy
in preservice elementary teachers. Science teaching anxiety and interest were classified as
emotions. Science teaching efficacy was measured using the Elementary Science Teaching
Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B; Enochs & Riggs, 1990) that includes two subscales:
Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs (self-efficacy dimension) and Science Teaching Outcome
Expectancy (outcome expectancy dimension). Based on CVT, outcome expectancy represents
control appraisal, and science teaching self-efficacy represents an outcome of the emotions
combined with control appraisal.
From the contemporary psychology of emotions perspective, interest in this study is
viewed as a positive activating emotion alongside curiosity and enjoyment (Loderer et al., 2020;
Pekrun, 2006; Silvia, 2008). Interest represents the relationship between a person and an object
or event (Krapp, 2002) and has features in common with intrinsic motivation and curiosity (Ryan
& Deci, 2000). Science interest is also a factor related to attitudes toward science (Klopfer, 1971;
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
7
Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003) that motivates learning and behavior (Silvia, 2008).
Therefore, science interest is the precondition of intrinsic motivation to engage in science and
choose a science-related career (Chen & Liu, 2020; Fonseca et al., 2014; Lent et al., 2010; Watt
et al., 2006). Not surprisingly, most of the research on science interest development was
conducted with children and adolescents, as students’ repeated engagement with science is
important for developing enduring interest in science and building science content knowledge
(Bergin, 2016; Chen et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2016; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Science interest
plays an important role in elementary science teaching as well, as teacher motivation to do
science with their students is positively correlated with their interest in science and general
attitudes toward science (Senler, 2016). Yet, research on science interest in teacher education and
preservice elementary teachers, in particular, is extremely scarce.
Science teaching efficacy in this study is conceptualized as self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy. Outcome expectancy is the expectation that behaviors will result in desirable
outcomes (Enoch & Riggs, 1990). Self-efficacy is the beliefs of one’s own coping abilities
(Bandura, 1977). In Bandura’s (1977) four sources of self-efficacy, emotional states refer to
how an individual’s anxiety can influence their self-efficacy to perform a specific behavior.
Specifically, there is a negative relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety because anxious
individuals tend to have thoughts about possible failure (Bandura, 1986). For teachers, anxiety
can debilitate actions and efforts in the classroom leading to lower self-efficacy in teaching
performance. Conversely, teachers with higher self-efficacy have expectations of success and
implement more novel teaching strategies (Bandura, 1977, 1997). Self-efficacy is an important
concept in science teacher education, as it directly affects the quality of science instruction and
time spent on teaching science (Banilower et al., 2018; Seung, Park, & Lee, 2019). Research
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
8
shows that elementary teachers’ avoidance to teach science and their science teaching anxiety are
related to their self-efficacy. These negative emotions toward science lead to low science
teaching self-efficacy and high anxiety toward science and teaching science (Bursal, 2012;
Gunning & Mensah, 2011).
Related Literature
Research in Science Teaching Anxiety
Despite the detrimental effects of science teaching anxiety on teacher and student
development, research on science teaching anxiety is scarce. Westerback and colleagues
pioneered the research in this area with a series of studies in the late seventies and early eighties
with preservice and in-service elementary teachers (Westerback, 1981, 1982, 1984; Westerback
& Long, 1990). For example, Westerback (1982, 1984) found that students with more positive
attitudes toward science experienced less science teaching anxiety. More recently, Yürük (2011)
investigated the relationships among preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching anxiety,
self-efficacy, and their prior science experiences. The study identified personal science teaching
efficacy as the strongest predictor of science teaching anxiety in preservice elementary teachers.
Similarly, Senler (2016) found a negative relationship among science teaching self-efficacy and
science anxiety in preservice elementary teachers.
Other studies investigated how science content knowledge impacted preservice teachers’
science anxiety. For instance, Westerback and Long (1990) found that in-service teachers
reported significantly lower anxiety about teaching earth science after participating in a course
on earth science. These findings contrast with Cox and Carpenter (1989) who found that a
methods course that intentionally placed less emphasis on content knowledge helped reduce
science teaching anxiety in preservice teachers. In addition, a few studies indicated that
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
9
cognitive-behavioral strategies like self-talk (Payne & Manning, 1990) and hands-on project-
based learning with 3D printing technology in a science methods course (Novak & Wisdom,
2018) can reduce preservice teachers’ science teaching anxiety.
Although research in this area is limited, it has major implications for teacher
development and preparation of STEM-capable workforce (National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, 2016), as children’s interest and desire to learn science and pursue a
science career directly relate to their early experiences in science classrooms (Riegle-Crumb et
al., 2015). Moreover, anxious teachers implement more teacher-centered teaching approaches,
such as reading from the text (Czerniak & Haney, 1998), become exhausted easily (Byrne,
1994), and develop negative feelings toward teaching (Gardner & Leak, 1994), all of which
negatively affects their students’ academic achievement and attitudes toward science content.
Measurement Issues
Earlier research on science teaching anxiety used Speilberger’s (1983) State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Westerback, 1981, 1984; Westerback & Long, 1990) that was
developed for assessing general state and trait anxiety. Trait anxiety is referred to “relatively
stable individual differences in anxiety proneness” (Spielberger et al., 1970, p. 3), while state
anxiety is a transitional emotional state that reflects situational influences. The STAI is a
standardized instrument with sample items like “I feel calm,” “I am jittery,” and “I feel
overexcited and rattled” (Westerback, 1982, p. 606). Studies on science teaching anxiety (e.g.,
(Hodgin, 2014; Westerback, 1982) did not change any of the STAI items but contextualized the
scale by changing the STAI heading from “Self-Evaluation Questionnaire” to “How Do You
Feel About Teaching Science?”, and the instructions as follows:
“IMAGINE that you are a classroom teacher in an elementary school. Among other
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
10
duties you are totally and solely responsible for the teaching of science to your class.
Now please read the directions to yourself for the questionnaire entitled, How Do YOU
Feel About Teaching Science?, while I read the directions to you. (The research
assistant reads the directions on the Test Form.)
In responding to each of the questions, imagine that you are teaching science for the
first time with the knowledge of science that you possess right now. It is the first day
of the new semester. Any questions? (Examiner should respond to specific questions
that arise by simply repeating the instructions and encouraging the students to use
their imagination).” (Westerback, 1984, p. 940)
The focus on state-trait anxiety is consistent with the view that teaching profession
imposes high stress, emotional exhaustion, and burnout (Fernet et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2017).
However, the STAI does not focus on instructional and pre-instructional events associated with
teaching science. Indeed, specific instructional events and situations such as answering student
questions, interacting with students, or evaluating students are unique to teaching anxiety
(Gardner & Leak, 1994). Overall, the STAI is the only instrument that was used to assess science
teaching anxiety in the science education literature.
Several studies investigated teachers’ science anxiety. For example, DeMauro and
Jennings (2016) used the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond,
1995) to assess preservice teachers’ emotional distress. Senler (2016) used Thompson and
Shrigley’s (1986) Science Attitude Scale that assessed preservice teachers’ attitudes toward
teaching science and toward taking science courses. Bursal (2008) developed a Science Anxiety
Survey to examine science anxiety in Turkish preservice teachers, and Yürük (2011) used a non-
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
11
validated researcher-developed instrument for assessing science teaching anxiety in preservice
elementary teachers.
Adapting Mathematics Anxiety Instruments for Science Education
Several researchers adapted various mathematics anxiety scales to assess science anxiety.
The connection between science anxiety and mathematics anxiety is unsurprising, as “the
alliance between science and mathematics has a long history, dating back centuries. Science
provides mathematics with interesting problems to investigate, and mathematics provides science
with powerful tools to use in analyzing them” (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990, p.16). In the context
of preservice teacher education, the idea of adapting a math anxiety scale for studying science
anxiety is also supported by research that indicates that preservice elementary teachers approach
teaching science with the same lack of enthusiasm as teaching mathematics and that their
attitudes toward one of the content areas of mathematics and science affects their attitudes
toward the other content area (Briscoe & Stout, 2001; Bursal & Paznokas, 2006). Nevertheless,
while research on science anxiety and science teaching anxiety remains scarce and non-
systematic, mathematics anxiety has been a source of concern in education for many years (see
the meta-analyses of the relationships between mathematics anxiety and mathematics
performance, Barroso et al. 2021; Zhang et al., 2019). Similar to science anxiety and science
teaching anxiety, mathematics anxiety is a subjective, state emotion that can be assessed using
self-report only (Pekrun, 2006).
The field of mathematics education offers multiple validated instruments for measuring
mathematics anxiety (e.g., Sandman Anxiety Toward Mathematics Scale [ATMS], Sandman,
1979; Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Anxiety Scale [MAS], Fennema & Sherman, 1976;
Mathematics Anxiety Rating ScaleRevised [MARS-R], Plake & Parker, 1982; abbreviated
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
12
Math Anxiety Rating Scale [sMARS], Alexander & Martray, 1989), while science education has
a limited number of reliable and validated tools for measuring science anxiety and only one
assessment of science teaching anxiety (STAI, Spielberger et al., 1970), which was not designed
specifically for science education. For example, Mallow and colleagues used Alvaro’s (1978)
Science Anxiety Questionnaire (Mallow 1986, 1994; Udo et al. 2001) that was modelled after the
98-item Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale (MARS; Richardson & Suinn, 1972) to assess
science anxiety in undergraduate students from various majors. Alvaro’s (1978) Science Anxiety
Questionnaire includes items that assess both science and nonscience anxiety with students in
general education science courses; it does not target specifically prospective or practicing
teachers that need to teach science. Riegle-Crumb et al. (2015) adapted the revised eight-item
MARS (Hopko, 2003) to assess preservice elementary teachers’ science anxiety by replacing the
word ‘math’ with ‘science.’ Although MARS is a widely used instrument for assessing math
anxiety, it is worth mentioning that some of its items like “Being given a ‘pop’ quiz in a math
class” do not represent best practices in educational assessment (Brookhart & Nitko, 2017).
Research does not justify use of “pop quizzes” because this type of assessment creates undue test
anxiety for students and fails to promote student understanding that assessments are meant to
help them understand what they need to do to improve and how it can be realistically
accomplished. As such, using MARS with preservice teachers who need modeling of best
educational assessment practices is problematic.
Britner and Pajares (2001) adapted three items from the Mathematics Anxiety Scale
(Pajares & Urdan, 1996) to assess science anxiety in middle school students. More recently,
Britner and Pajares (2006) added five more items to their original 3-item science anxiety scale
for assessing science anxiety in middle school students, but it was not clear how the newly added
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
13
five items were created. Moreover, although some studies used large sample sizes and reported
acceptable internal consistency values for the employed instruments, no formal instrument
development procedures for establishing the instrument validity were reported and the employed
instruments focused on science anxiety only.
In summary, research on science teaching anxiety and its causes are extremely scarce and
not current, and the extant literature does not provide a validated, context-relevant instrument for
assessing science teaching anxiety. Although several recent studies used various instruments for
assessing science teaching anxiety, the employed instruments were not validated. This is
problematic, as the reliability and construct validity of these instruments are unknown and
consequently the internal validity of empirical studies that used these instruments is
undetermined. Developing a valid, context-relevant instrument for assessing science teaching
anxiety is critical for advancing research in this area. Moreover, the only validated instrument for
assessing science teaching anxiety (STAI, Spielberger et al., 1970) was conceptualized about 40
years ago when standards and accountability were less prevalent than they are today. Factors
such as increased pressure from accountability and changes in science education policies,
practices, curriculum, and standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013; NRC, 2012) require a more
current conceptualization and examination of science teaching anxiety for preservice elementary
teachers.
Research Objectives
The goal of this study was twofold. First, we present the development of the Science
Teaching Anxiety Scale (STAS) and empirically examine its psychometric properties using a
Rasch analysis. We examined the psychometric properties of this instrument with and without
the inclusion of engineering concepts given that engineering is now included in most science
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
14
standards and curriculum, but many teachers of science are not trained in engineering and may
have more anxiety on the inclusion of this content in addition to the different science domains.
Second, we examined the relationships between science teaching anxiety, science interest,
outcome expectancy, and science teaching self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers to
provide evidence of the STAS criterion-related validity and explore utility of CVT in preservice
elementary science education. The CVT was used as a theoretical framework for investigating
such relationships. The following three working hypotheses were tested:
RH1. Science teaching anxiety is a negative predictor of science teaching self-efficacy in
preservice elementary teachers.
This hypothesis is grounded in CVT that specifies the relationships between negative
activating emotions (i.e., science teaching anxiety) and outcomes of these emotions (i.e., science
teaching self-efficacy). It is also informed by psychometrical literature that clearly indicates that
anxious individuals demonstrate lower performance and report lower self-efficacy, all of which
contributes to poor outcomes (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman &
Bandura, 1994). People who have high self-efficacy for a specific task will work tirelessly to
succeed, while those who have low self-efficacy may give up easily (Bandura, 1997; Palmer,
2006).
RH 2. Science interest is a positive predictor of science teaching self-efficacy in preservice
elementary teachers.
This hypothesis is informed by CVT that specifies relationships between positive
activating emotions (i.e., science interest) and outcomes of these emotions (i.e., science teaching
self-efficacy).
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
15
RH3. Preservice teachers’ science teaching anxiety will be negatively correlated with their
science interest.
This hypothesis is supported from the ideas that science interest motivates people to learn
something new and complex about science (Silvia, 2008), while anxiety can be detrimental to
interest and intrinsic motivation (Pekrun, 2006).
Together, the three hypotheses aim to provide evidence supporting the STAS criterion-
related validity. We did not formulate hypotheses related to the outcome expectancy variable, as
these analyses only aimed to explore utility of CVT in preservice elementary science education.
Rasch Analysis
Rasch model is a modern approach that provides validity and reliability evidence in test
development literature. It obtains item difficulties and person abilities and reveals the
relationship between these two parameters on the same logit scale (Bond et al., 2020). In
psychological tests that include ordinal Likert Scale items (e.g., measuring anxiety, depression),
Rasch can help transform ordinal scales to interval scales (Bond et al., 2020). There are several
different Rasch models such as Partial Credit Model and Rating Scale Model, and the use of
these models depends on the data that are being investigated. For example, Rating Scale Model
(RSM, Andrich, 1978) used in this study is preferred when the items have the same response
categories and the distance between each category (category thresholds) is the same across all
items. The RSM can be formulated as follows:
    

  


Where:
represents the level of construct for a given person,
represents difficulty parameter for item i,
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
16
represents the kth threshold location of rating scale, which is same to all items,
m represents maximum score.
Compared to Classical Test Theory, which is considered a traditional way for validity and
reliability analyses and widely used in instrument development studies, Rasch analysis can
provide the psychometric properties of a test at the item level. For instance, Rasch analysis can
provide evidence about dimensionality of the test using Principal Component Analysis of
Residuals (PCAR). PCAR helps investigate any potential dimensions in a dataset and examine
the strength of the dimensionality. In addition, using fit statistics (i.e., misfit) at the item level
can provide more evidence about the item quality. In Rasch perspective, Infit and Outfit Mean
Square fit statistics (MNSQ) are used to confirm the degree to which the data fit the model
(Linacre, 2002). The obtained values are compared with previously developed guidelines (see
Wright et al., 1994) to interpret the item quality.
In addition, separation and reliability for both item and person are used in test validation
studies. Item separation shows how items are distributed across measurement trait, while person
separation indicates how persons are dispersed across a measurement trait. Combining item
difficulties and person abilities on the scale measurement trait, the Wright-Map, which visually
shows the relationship between these two parameters, provides evidence about the targeting
between person and item measures.
Method
Science Teaching Anxiety Instrument Development and Content Validity
DeVellis’ (2011) 8-step procedure for scale development was utilized to develop the
STAS: (1) Determine clearly what you want to measure, (2) Generate an item pool, (3)
Determine the format for measurement, (4) Have the initial item pool reviewed by experts, (5)
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
17
Consider inclusion of validation items, (6) Administer items to a development sample, (7)
Evaluate the items, and (8) Optimize scale length. Fennema and Sherman’s (1976) Mathematics
Anxiety Scale (MAS) was adapted to create an initial item pool for assessing preservice
elementary teachers’ science teaching anxiety. This approach is consistent with other studies that
adapted various math anxiety scales (e.g., Britner & Pajares, 2001, 2006) to assess science
teaching anxiety. The original Fennema and Sherman’s (1976) MAS included 12 five-point
Likert items. Many MAS items were adapted for science teaching anxiety by replacing “math”
with “teaching science.” For example, “Math does not scare me at all” was replaced with
“Teaching science does not scare me at all.”
Several items were modified to reflect specific teaching practices and topics in a science
classroom. For example, a MAS item “I seldom panic during a math test” was modified to “I
seldom panic while teaching a science lesson,” “I am usually at ease in math lessons” was
adapted as “I am usually at ease interpreting and communicating science concepts,” and “I get a
sinking feeling when I think of trying difficult math problems” was modified to “I get a sinking
feeling when I think of teaching students how to design technological/engineering solutions.” In
this context, “technological/engineering solutions” was selected as comparable to “difficult math
problems.”
One MAS item “It would not bother me at all to take more math courses” was replaced
with four items that focused on science teaching anxiety in the four domains included in the
Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012), i.e., earth and space
science, life science, physical science, and technological and engineering design. Specifically,
the four items included were: “It would not bother me at all to teach topics in elementary Earth
and Space Science”, “It would not bother me at all to teach topics in elementary Life Science”,
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
18
“It would not bother me at all to teach topics in elementary Physical Science”, and “It would not
bother me at all to teach topics in elementary Technological and Engineering Design.”
Overall, the STAS included 15 five-point Likert items with response choices: 1 (not true),
2 (slightly true), 3 (moderately true), 4 (mostly true), and 5 (very true). Eight of them were
reversed items (Table 1).
There are two possible methods for scoring the STAS. The first method is to sum all
responses. An alternate and preferable scoring method is to find the average score for the scale
by dividing the total score by 15, i.e., the number the STAS items. This converts the total into a
score ranging from 1 to 5, allowing for easier interpretation.
Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics of the Science Teaching Anxiety Scale Items
Mean
Std
1. Teaching science does not scare me at all. *
3.35
1.07
2. It would not bother me at all to teach topics in elementary Earth and
Space Science.*
2.65
1.14
3. It would not bother me at all to teach topics in elementary Life
Science.*
2.43
1.05
4. It would not bother me at all to teach topics in elementary Physical
Science.*
2.66
1.10
5. It would not bother me at all to teach topics in elementary
Technological and Engineering Design.*
3.43
1.30
6. I seldom panic while teaching a science lesson.*
3.24
1.02
7. I am usually at ease while teaching a science lesson.*
3.18
1.01
8. I am usually at ease interpreting and communicating science concepts.*
3.28
1.03
9. I get a sinking feeling when I think of teaching students how to design
technological/engineering solutions.
2.81
1.21
10. Teaching science makes me feel uncomfortable, restless, irritable and
impatient.
1.74
0.94
11. Teaching science usually makes me feel uncomfortable and nervous.
1.95
0.97
12. I get a sinking feeling when I think of teaching a difficult science
concept.
2.57
1.21
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
19
13. My mind goes blank and I am unable to think clearly when planning a
science lesson.
1.83
1.00
14. Preparing students for a science test would scare me.
2.16
1.09
15. Walking into a school and thinking about teaching a science lesson
makes me feel uneasy and nervous.
1.90
0.93
Note. * indicates items that were reverse scored.
The STAS’ content validity was established by having a panel of science education
researchers review the STAS. Based on the panel’s feedback, several items were modified to
account for the fact that the participants were preservice teachers with limited experience of
teaching science in real-world classrooms.
The 15 items were subjected to a pilot study with 42 undergraduate students majoring in
Early Childhood Education (Novak & Wisdom, 2018). Cronbach’s alpha test revealed a high
level of internal consistency and reliability for the STAS questionnaire, α = .89, exceeding the
acceptable threshold established in the literature (Peterson, 1994).
Participants and Context
Undergraduate preservice early childhood education teachers (N = 191; 6 males) from a
large mid-western university in the US participated in the study. The mean participants’ age was
21.7 (SD = 2.24) and 96.9% identified as female. On a scale from 1-4, the mean participants’
self-reported grade point average (GPA) was 3.57 (SD = .19). The participants were in their final
semester of coursework prior to their full-time student teaching semester.
The teacher education program, from which participants were recruited for this study,
includes eight semesters of coursework and 122 credit hours. Preservice teachers in the program
take a range of classes including content courses (e.g., in social studies, science), educational
technology courses, and child development courses. Over the course of the program, they
complete about 800 field hours in early childhood classrooms prior to the student teaching
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
20
semester when they complete 600 field hours. The state in which this study occurred changed the
licensure grade levels from P-3 to P-5 for early childhood education graduates. At the time of
this study, participants were part of the P-3 grade level licensure program, however many were
also seeking grade 4-5 endorsement certificates to be eligible for employment opportunities post-
graduation that would include all the elementary years.
Participants were recruited from undergraduate Science Methods and Educational
Technology courses for preservice teachers. They were informed about the purpose of the study
and offered a course credit for their participation. Alternatively, they could select a different
course activity to complete if they were not interested in participating in the study.
Procedures
The study was approved by an institutional review board. Participants completed a series
of questionnaires in the following order: (1) background questionnaire, (2) science interest (Deci
et al., 1994), (3) STAS, and (4) STEBI-B (science teaching self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy, Enochs & Riggs, 1990). The background questionnaire asked participants about
their age, gender, major, and science background. To reduce evaluation apprehension, all
questionnaires included a statement assuring participants that there were no right or wrong
answers and encouraged respondents to answer questions as honestly as possible.
Measures
Science Interest. Deci et al.’s (1994; Appendix A) interest/enjoyment subscale of the
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory was adapted to measure preservice teachers’ interest in science.
The science interest instrument included five five-point Likert-type items (Chen et al., 2016;
Koka & Hein, 2003). We used a Rasch Analysis to assess the validity of the adapted
interest/enjoyment subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. The results indicated
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
21
promising psychometric properties. The five-item science interest scale was found to be
unidimensional and the items had acceptable fit indices. The items were targeting the persons
well with item measures ranging from -1.85 to 1.72. The person raw-score test reliability (i.e.,
Coefficient [Cronbach’s] α) was .88. The science interest scores were calculated by averaging
the five items of the scale. The minimum possible score was 1 and the maximum possible score
was 5.
Science Teaching Efficacy was assessed using the preservice teacher version of the
Elementary Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B; Enochs & Riggs, 1990).
This five-point Likert instrument includes two subscales: Science Teaching Self-Efficacy (13
items) and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (10 items). Therefore, we ran two separate
Rasch analyses to assess the quality of each subscale. The Rasch analyses revealed that both
subscales had promising psychometric properties. Specifically, the Science Teaching Self-
Efficacy subscale was found to be unidimensional, and the items had acceptable item fit indices.
The items were targeting the persons well with item measures ranging from 2.33 to 2.18. The
person raw-score test reliability (i.e., Coefficient [Cronbach’s] α) was .84. Science Teaching
Self-Efficacy scores were calculated by averaging the 13 items of the scale. The minimum
possible score was 1 and the maximum possible score was 5.
The Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy subscale was found to be unidimensional as
well. The items had acceptable item fit indices and they were targeting the persons well with
item measures ranging from -.94 to .73. The person raw-score test reliability (i.e., Coefficient
[Cronbach’s] α) was .78.
Data Analysis
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
22
Using a Rasch analysis, this study first examined the psychometric properties of two
versions of the STAS (with and without the inclusion of engineering concepts). Specifically, we
used Rating Scale Model (Andrich, 1978) in our analyses because the responses in the STAS are
polytomous (e.g., Likert Scale). First, unidimensionality of the STAS, which is one of the
assumptions of Rasch analysis, was investigated using Rasch Principal Components Analysis
(PCA, Linacre, 1998). Linacre (2020) suggested that the first contrast’s eigenvalue should be
lower than two to have evidence of unidimensionality. In addition to examining the eigenvalues
of the contrasts, the disattenuated correlation between the person measures using each cluster of
items was examined (Schumacker & Muchinsky, 1996). Linacre (2020) suggested the cutoff
value of .70 to have evidence of unidimensionality.
Second, reliability, separation, and fit statistics for both items and persons were used to
examine validity and reliability of the STAS. High person/item separation refers to how well
person/items are distributed across the logit scale. On the other hand, person/item reliability are
other statistics used in Rasch analysis and Linacre (2020) suggested high person/item reliability.
Linacre (2020) highlighted that low person separation (< 2.00) and person reliability (< .08)
imply that the instrument may not be sensitive enough to differentiate between high and low
performers and more items may be needed. In addition, low item separation (< 3.00) and item
reliability (< .90) could imply that the sample is not large enough to verify the item difficulties of
the instrument. Finally, Mean Square values (MNSQ) Infit and Outfit measures were used to
determine any potential misfit with a cut-off score ranging between .60 and 1.40 (Wright et al.,
1994). All Rasch analyses were conducted in Winsteps 4.6.0 (Linacre, 2021).
Finally, bivariate correlations and a hierarchical multiple regression analysis were used to
examine the relationships among science teaching anxiety, science interest, outcome expectancy,
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
23
Previous study (Novak & Wisdom, 2018)
Current Study
and science teaching self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. The analyses were
conducted using SPSS Version 26. Figure 2 summarizes the whole STAS development and
validation process.
Figure 2. The STAS development and validation process
Results
Validation of the STAS with Engineering Concepts
Unidimensionality
We relied on several indicators to determine the unidimensionality of the STAS. First, the
Principal Component Analysis of Residuals (PCAR) was used to investigate the dimensionality
of the STAS by focusing on the standardized residuals of the data. The results showed that the
unexplained variance in the first contrast had eigenvalues of 3.32, which implies a potential
second dimension. Since this eigenvalue in the first contrast was higher than the proposed cutoff
Create an
initial pool of
questions by
adapting
Fennema and
Sherman’s
(1976)
Mathematics
Anxiety Scale
Establish the
STAS content
validity with a
panel of
science
education
researchers
Pilot test the
STAS with 42
preservice
elementary
teachers
(Chronbach's α
= .89)
Examine the
psychometric
properties of
the STAS with
and without
engineering
concepts using
a Rasch
analysis
Establish the
STAS criterion-
related validity
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
24
value of 2.00, we conducted follow-up analyses (i.e., examination of clusters) to further examine
the STAS’ unidimensionality. Investigation of the clusters determined in the PCAR showed that
the content of the items across the clusters involved one treat. In addition, the disattenuated
correlation between the person measures using each cluster of items was examined. The
correlation of the person measures between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 was .88, Clusters 2 and
Cluster 3 was .84, and Cluster 1 and 3 was .63. Even though the disattenuated correlation
between Cluster 1 and Cluster 3 was slightly lower than the cutoff value of .70, it was found that
person measures on these two clusters had around 44% of the variance in common. All these
results evidenced that the 15 STAS items collectively measured the aspects of science teaching
anxiety. As such, the STAS was considered unidimensional.
Rasch Analysis
Rating Scale Model (Andrich, 1978) was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of
the STAS. Table 2 presents summary statistics for persons and items. The person measures
ranged from -4.68 to 5.81 logits with a mean of -.50 (SD = 1.24). The person separation was 2.88
and person reliability was .89. Person raw-score test reliability (i.e., Coefficient [Cronbach’s] α)
was .91.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
25
Table 2.
Summary Statistics
Summary of Measured Persons (N = 191)
Value
Score
Measure
Error
Infit MNSQ
Outfit
MNSQ
M
39.2
-.57
.33
1.01
.99
SD
10.3
1.11
.08
.55
.54
MAX
71
3.19
1.02
2.87
3.21
MIN
16
-4.79
.29
.16
.16
Real
RMSE: .37, True SD: 1.04, Separation: 2.80, Person Reliability: .89
Summary of Measured Items (N = 15)
Value
Score
Measure
Error
Infit MNSQ
Outfit
MNSQ
M
498.9
0.00
.09
1.01
0.99
SD
109.9
0.85
.01
.27
.27
MAX
656
1.38
.11
1.44
1.56
MIN
333
-1.17
.08
.66
.68
Real
RMSE: .09, True SD: .85, Separation: 8.90, Item Reliability: .99
In addition, item difficulties ranged from -1.17 to 1.38 logits. Item separation was 8.90
and item reliability was .99. Based on the criteria provided by Linacre (2020), item separation
and item reliability are considered acceptable, and this result suggests that the STAS can
differentiate between items with higher and lower ratings. Additionally, individual items were
analyzed by investigating items misfit order. Table 3 presents item misfit statistics. All point
measure correlations were positive and ranged from .46 to .71. Investigation of the Infit and
Outfit MNSQ values revealed that all items except for Item 9 had good fit value based on the
cutoff values proposed by Wright et al. (1994). Since the context and wording of this item had a
unique focus on anxiety about teaching engineering, which is not quite the same as anxiety about
teaching science, the item was deemed to be misfitting.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
26
Table 3.
Item Statistics for Misfit Order
#
Item
Measure
SE
Infit
MNSQ
Outfit
MSNQ
PMQ
9
I get a sinking feeling when I think of
teaching students how to design
technological/engineering solutions.
-.33
.08
1.44
1.56
.46
6*
I seldom panic while teaching a science
lesson.
-.90
.08
1.26
1.40
.46
5*
It would not bother me at all to teach topics
in elementary Technological and
Engineering Design.
-1.17
.09
1.34
1.28
.64
13
My mind goes blank and I am unable to
think clearly when planning a science lesson.
1.20
.10
1.25
1.14
.57
12
I get a sinking feeling when I think of
teaching a difficult science concept.
.01
.09
1.12
1.06
.66
14
Preparing students for a science test would
scare me.
.62
.09
1.11
1.06
.63
10
Teaching science makes me feel
uncomfortable, restless, irritable and
impatient.
1.38
.11
1.03
.91
.63
1*
Teaching science does not scare me at all.
-1.05
.08
.97
1.01
.62
2*
It would not bother me at all to teach topics
in elementary Earth and Space Science.
-.11
.09
.97
.97
.66
11
Teaching science usually makes me feel
uncomfortable and nervous.
.97
.10
.84
.79
.68
4*
It would not bother me at all to teach topics
in elementary Physical Science.
-.12
.09
.81
.79
.70
3*
It would not bother me at all to teach topics
in elementary Life Science.
.21
.09
.75
.75
.69
8*
I am usually at ease interpreting and
communicating science concepts.
-.95
.08
.74
.73
.70
15
Walking into a school and thinking about
teaching a science lesson makes me feel
uneasy and nervous.
1.07
.10
.72
.68
.70
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
27
7*
I am usually at ease while teaching a science
lesson.
-.83
.08
.66
.69
.71
Note. * indicates items that were reverse scored.
Validation of the STAS without Engineering Concepts
As the examination of the STAS with engineering concepts showed promising validity
and reliability evidence for future use, the validation process was repeated by eliminating Items 5
and 9 to examine the psychometric properties of the STAS without engineering concepts.
Unidimensionality
The PCAR was used to investigate the dimensionality of the STAS excluding Items 5 and
9 by focusing on the standardized residuals of the data. The results indicated that the unexplained
variance in the first contrast had eigenvalues of 3.17, which again implies a potential second
dimension. The disattenuated correlation between the person measures using each cluster of
items was examined. The correlation of the person measures between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2
was .90, Clusters 2 and Cluster 3 was .80, and Cluster 1 and 3 was .61. Compared to initial
validation with all 15 STAS items, these results also evidenced that the 13 STAS items
collectively measured the aspects of science teaching anxiety without engineering concepts. As
such, the STAS without engineering concepts (Items 5 and 9) was also considered
unidimensional.
Rasch Analysis
Rating Scale Model (Andrich, 1978) was used to check item quality in STAS after
excluding Items 5 and 9. Table 4 presents summary statistics for persons and items. The person
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
28
measures ranged from -4.94 to 3.31 logits with a mean of -.75 (SD = 1.2). The person separation
was 2.7 and person reliability was .88. Person raw-score test reliability (i.e., Coefficient
[Cronbach’s] α) was .90.
Table 4.
Summary Statistics
Summary of Measured Persons (N = 191)
Value
Score
Measure
Error
Infit MNSQ
Outfit
MNSQ
M
33.0
-.75
.37
1.00
1.00
SD
9.0
1.2
.07
.58
.59
MAX
61
3.31
1.03
3.23
3.53
MIN
14
-4.94
.33
.12
.12
Real
RMSE: .42, True SD: 1.13, Separation: 2.70, Person Reliability: .88
Summary of Measured Items (N = 13)
Value
Score
Measure
Error
Infit MNSQ
Outfit
MNSQ
M
493.9
0.00
.10
1.02
1.00
SD
108.2
0.94
.01
.22
.25
MAX
640
1.40
.11
1.44
1.45
MIN
333
-1.31
.09
.71
.71
Real
RMSE: .10, True SD: .93, Separation: 9.27, Item Reliability: .99
In addition, item difficulties ranged from -1.31 to 1.4 logits. Item separation was 9.27 and
item reliability was .99. Based on the criteria provided by Linacre (2020), item separation and
item reliability are considered acceptable, and this result suggests that the STAS without the
inclusion of engineering concepts can differentiate between items with higher and lower ratings.
Additionally, individual items were analyzed by investigating items misfit order. Table 5
presents item misfit statistics. All point measure correlations were positive and ranged from .45
to .71. Investigation of the Infit and Outfit MNSQ values revealed that all items for 13 items had
good fit value based on the cutoff values proposed by Wright et al. (1994).
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
29
Table 5.
Item Statistics for Misfit Order
#
Item
Measure
SE
Infit
MNSQ
Outfit
MSNQ
PMQ
6*
I seldom panic while teaching a science
lesson.
-1.13
.09
1.44
1.45
.45
13
My mind goes blank and I am unable to
think clearly when planning a science
lesson.
1.2
.11
1.31
1.18
.58
12
I get a sinking feeling when I think of
teaching a difficult science concept.
-.11
.09
1.29
1.23
.65
14
Preparing students for a science test would
scare me.
.57
.10
1.15
1.09
.65
1*
Teaching science does not scare me at all.
-1.31
.09
1.05
1.08
.64
2*
It would not bother me at all to teach topics
in elementary Earth and Space Science.
-.24
.09
1.06
1.04
.67
10
Teaching science makes me feel
uncomfortable, restless, irritable and
impatient.
1.40
.11
1.05
.92
.65
4*
It would not bother me at all to teach topics
in elementary Physical Science.
-.26
.09
.93
.91
.69
11
Teaching science usually makes me feel
uncomfortable and nervous.
.95
.10
.86
.79
.70
3*
It would not bother me at all to teach topics
in elementary Life Science.
.11
.09
.84
.82
.70
8*
I am usually at ease interpreting and
communicating science concepts.
-1.19
.09
.78
.77
.72
7*
I am usually at ease while teaching a
science lesson.
-1.05
.09
.71
.76
.72
15
Walking into a school and thinking about
teaching a science lesson makes me feel
uneasy and nervous.
1.06
.10
.74
.71
.71
Note. * indicates items that were reverse scored.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
30
Figure 3 shows the Wright Map that presents the person and item measures on the same
logit scale, which provides additional information about how items are targeting participants in
measuring their science teaching anxiety level. This visualization also helps evaluate the
construct validity of the scale and understand whether item ordering and spacing match what is
expected from the theory (Boone & Staver, 2020). The Wright Map revealed that the items were
distributed evenly around the mean and that they targeted the persons well. Although some items
(i.e., Item 11-15, Item 2-4, Item 6-8) are located at around same position on the logit scale and
that may indicate redundancy among items, the examination of the wording of these items did
not show any evidence that they were similar. Item 10 was the most difficult item to endorse,
whereas Item 1 was the easiest item to endorse. However, as seen in Figure 3, some of the
participants were located below the item measures, suggesting that some of these participants
found most of the items in the STAS items hard. This means that participants mostly endorsed
lower frequency levels on the Likert scale (i.e., Not true, Slightly True). To summarize, the
Wright Map evidences that the STAS items have a unique contribution in determining the
participants with high levels of science teaching anxiety without any redundancy in measuring
the construct.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
31
Figure 3. The Rasch person-item map for the STAS. The distribution of person estimates is to
the left of the vertical line and the distribution of items difficulties is to the right of the vertical
line. Each “#” represents two respondents, while each “.” represents one respondent. The letter M
on the map is the mean for person and item estimates. The letters S and T indicate the location of
one standard deviation from the mean and two standard deviations from the mean, respectively.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
32
Bivariate Correlations and Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was employed to examine whether preservice
teachers’ outcome expectancy predicts teaching self-efficacy above and beyond science teaching
anxiety (with engineering concepts) and science interest. The hierarchical regression analysis and
order of entering variables is consistent with prior studies that tested utility of CVT in various
educational contexts (Duffy et al., 2020). Prior to the data analysis, investigation of the multiple
regression analysis assumptions showed that all assumptions were met. Table 6 shows
descriptive statistics for the variables used in the model and bivariate correlations among them.
Table 6.
Descriptive Statistics of All Study Variables
Variables
M
SD
1
2
3
4
1. Science Teaching Self-Efficacy
3.64
.50
--
2. Outcome Expectancy
3.46
.40
.145**
--
2. Science Teaching Anxiety
2.53
.70
-.681*
-.066
--
3. Science interest
3.77
.87
.511*
.236*
-.683*
--
Note: * p < 0.01 and **p < 0.05.
Possible score range for all variables: 1-5.
The results revealed that each block significantly added to the prediction of the criterion
variable, i.e., teaching self-efficacy (Table 7). Together, the final model with all three predictors
accounted for approximately 50% of the variance in preservice teachers’ science teaching self-
efficacy. In Block 1, the model was statistically significant; both science teaching anxiety (β = -
.568, SE = .043) and science interest (β = .220, SE = .034) were significant predictors of
preservice teachers’ teaching self-efficacy. In other words, preservice teachers’ self-efficacy
scores decrease by around .4 points as their science teaching anxiety scores increase one unit
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
33
after holding other variables in the model constant. Additionally, preservice teachers’ self-
efficacy scores increase by around .13 points as their science interest scores increase one unit
after controlling for other variables in the model.
Including outcome expectancy in Block 2 along with science teaching anxiety and
science interest from the Block 1 resulted in a significant model. However, outcome expectancy
was not a significant predictor of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, and the increase in the
explained variance after adding outcome expectancy was not statistically significant (R2 =
.003).
Table 7.
A Hierarchical Regression Model Predicting Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Science Teaching
Self-Efficacy
Variables
Block 1
Block 2
B
SE
β
t
B
SE
β
t
Science interest
.126
.034
.220
3.652*
.116
.035
.204
3.292
Science Teaching Anxiety
-.404
.043
-.568
-.945*
-.407
.043
-.573
-9.508
Outcome Expectancy
.074
.067
.059
1.103
Model Summary
F Statistics
F(2,188) = 93.685*
F(3,187) = 62.934*
R2
.499
.502
R2
.499
.003
Note: * p < 0.01 and **p < 0.05.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
34
Discussion
Developing instruments in social and behavioral sciences is crucial, as high-quality
instruments are important for advancing research (Boone & Townsend, 2010), particularly in
areas that have limited body of research such as science teaching anxiety. This study developed
an instrument for assessing preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching anxiety, which can
be viewed as one of the dimensions of teachers’ emotions toward teaching science content.
Science teaching anxiety can influence teachers’ inclusion of science content in K-12 classrooms
as well as affect preservice elementary teachers’ learning experiences during their teacher
preparation.
Two versions of the STAS (with and without the inclusion of engineering concepts; 14
and 13 Likert-type items respectively) were developed and validated with preservice teachers in
the elementary years of teaching. The study results revealed that preservice teachers were most
anxious about teaching technological and engineering design topics (M = 3.43, on a 1-5 scale),
followed by physical science (M = 2.66) and earth and space topics (M = 2.65). The life science
domain (M = 2.43) was rated as the least anxious area of science education to teach. The findings
align with Banilower et al. (2018) who examined elementary teachers’ perceptions of
preparedness to teach various science subjects (i.e., life science, earth/space science, physical
science, and engineering). Some of this is not surprising as engineering is a new addition to
many state standards and teachers lack adequate content training and self-efficacy in this domain
(Hammack & Ivey, 2017; Rich et al., 2017). Moreover, many preservice elementary teachers do
not have extensive experience or knowledge in technological and engineering design and
therefore experience higher levels of teaching anxiety and tensions in this domain (Radloff &
Capobianco, 2021). Because of these reasons, we offer two versions of the STAS: with and
without the inclusion of engineering concepts.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
35
STAS Psychometric Properties
The Rasch analysis results revealed that both versions of the STAS represent a
unidimensional instrument that can differentiate between items with higher and lower ratings. At
the item level, only Item 9, i.e., “I get a sinking feeling when I think of teaching students how to
design technological/engineering solutions,” showed misfit and therefore was excluded from the
STAS with engineering concepts version. Overall, the Rasch analysis results indicated that both
versions of the STAS showed promising validity and reliability evidence for future research uses.
Relationships Between Science Teaching Anxiety, Science Interest, Outcome Expectancy,
and Science Teaching Self-Efficacy
The results from correlation analyses revealed that science teaching anxiety significantly
and negatively correlated with science teaching self-efficacy and science interest. Science
interest was positively correlated with science teaching self-efficacy. Outcome expectancy
(control appraisal) significantly and positively related to science teaching self-efficacy and
science interest. These patterns are consistent with CVT and provide support that control
appraisal, emotions, and teaching self-efficacy are significantly related to one another in the
context of preservice elementary science education.
Using science teaching anxiety, science interest, and outcome expectancy as independent
variables resulted in a significant model explaining approximately 50% of the variance in
preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy. Science teaching anxiety was the
strongest (negative) predictor (β = -.573) and science interest was a positive predictor (β = .204).
These findings are in line with the study hypotheses RH1 and RH2, suggesting that emotions like
science teaching anxiety and science interest have major implications for science teaching self-
efficacy in preservice elementary teachers, and therefore should receive a closer attention from
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
36
research and teacher preparation communities. In addition, they provide empirical evidence
supporting the STAS criterion-related validity. After controlling for the effects of science
teaching anxiety and science interest, outcome expectancy was not a significant predictor of
preservice teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy.
Consistent with the RH3 hypothesis, science teaching anxiety significantly and
negatively correlated with science interest. This finding is consistent with the literature that
views interest as a variable that motivates teachers to spend more time doing science with their
students (Osborne et al., 2003; Senler, 2016) and anxiety as a variable that inhibits that interest
(Davis, 2009; Pekrun, 2006). Taken together, these findings provide strong empirical evidence of
the STAS criterion-related validity.
Summary
The present study makes three important contributions to the science education literature.
First, it offers a valid, self-report, easy-to-use scale for assessing science teaching anxiety in
preservice elementary teachers. Second, it provides a novel insight into the emotions that
influence preservice teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a well-known
construct in the science education literature (e.g., Jones & Leagon, 2014). However, its effects
were usually investigated on science instruction (Bursal, 2012), student achievement (Angle &
Moseley, 2010; Evans, 2011), or the connection of self-efficacy with content knowledge (e.g.,
Murphy, Neil, & Beggs, 2007). The STAS can provide additional opportunities for examining
relationships among variables and contribute more nuanced understandings of emotions, such as
science teaching anxiety. Third, this study provides initial empirical evidence of the CVT utility
in preservice elementary science education.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
37
Moreover, although the STAS was developed with preservice elementary teachers, it is
reasonable to consider this instrument’s use with secondary teachers. In general, elementary
teachers are subject generalists responsible for all content areas and secondary teachers are
content specialists focusing on one area. This may make elementary teachers more anxious
toward teaching certain domain-specific content (e.g., science) than secondary science teachers.
However, secondary science teachers may also feel anxious toward teaching some content
especially if they are teaching out-of-field, which is happening more frequently in science
education (e.g., Nixon et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2020). Therefore, the STAS could also be
relevant to secondary science teachers. In addition, the inclusion of engineering practices into the
science standards is new for all science teachers (elementary and secondary). Therefore,
examining elementary and secondary teachers’ science teaching anxiety using the STAS with
engineering concepts is certainly an area worthy of future exploration.
Limitations
Despite best efforts, this study is not without limitations. First, the sample is limited to
preservice elementary teachers in a single state in the US. As such, the results may not broadly
generalize to other education-majors or preservice elementary teachers from other geographic
areas. Second, administering assessments in a fixed order, i.e., (1) background questionnaire, (2)
science interest, (3) STAS, (4) STEBI-B, could possibly result in the higher correlations reported
in the study, as student responses on one assessment could directly affect their responses on
others. For example, reflecting on one own’s science teaching anxiety could influence responses
about science teaching self-efficacy. Finally, the present study included only three predicting
variables of science teaching self-efficacy. Including additional variables could potentially
explain a higher amount of the variance in teaching self-efficacy.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
38
Implications
This study has implications for researchers, teacher educators, and individuals who work
with new teachers. For educational researchers, the STAS is an instrument that can be used to
measure teachers’ science teaching anxiety. This anxiety can be measured as teachers progress in
preparation programs, and/or through their early years of teaching. Science teaching anxiety can
also be measured during any changes that occur during one’s teaching career that present
challenges to the teacher. For instance, elementary teachers are sometimes re-assigned to teach
different grade levels in their careers, creating a re-novicing of teachers (Hanuscin et al., 2020).
In addition, changing standards and curriculum can be factors that produce additional challenges
for teachers (Navy et al., 2018). It would be productive to learn if these challenges alter the
science teaching anxiety of new and experienced teachers. In addition, the instrument can be
used to evaluate the intensity of science teaching anxiety during preservice teachers’ field
experiences to better understand how teaching anxiety influences their science instruction and
attitudes toward science in a classroom.
In addition, teacher educators and preparation programs should devote more attention to
preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching anxiety and science interest, as these emotions
have implications on their ability to teach science and promote science interest in their
prospective students. Programs can be designed to allow preservice teachers opportunities to
reflect on their experiences in and with science, and to discuss anxieties they might have with the
science content. This may assist teachers in controlling and self-regulating their emotions, which
has been noted as an important component in learning to teach science (Oosterheert & Vermunt,
2001). Following preparation programs, induction programs that work with new elementary
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
39
teachers should also embed opportunities for the new teachers to reflect on their science teaching
anxiety.
In addition, it would be important for teacher educators to cultivate science interest in
preservice teachers. Michaelis (2017) argues that the design of science and engineering design
learning environments should be informed by interest development research. This research
indicates the importance of providing choice and autonomy in learning, making lessons
personally relevant, including appropriately challenging material, and situating learning in social
and cultural ways. Learning environments centered on interest could be structured around citizen
science methods, problem-based learning, or the Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and
Satisfaction (ARCS) motivational framework (Keller, 1987), as these approaches are informed
by ideas of interest development (Michaelis, 2017).These methods could be used in teacher
preparation programs to further develop preservice elementary teachers’ science interest
alongside modeling best science teaching practices.
Finally, for individuals working with new teachers during preservice or induction
programs, it is important to focus on the science content that the teachers may feel more anxious
about. For instance, physical science or engineering and technology are science domains that
tend to evoke more science anxiety than other domains, such as life science. It is important for
elementary teachers to feel comfortable in all content domains in order for students to explore
the many opportunities and dimensions of science and engineering.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
40
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Funding: The study did not receive any funding.
Ethical Guidelines: The research was approved by an institutional review board.
Availability of Data and Materials: The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study
are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
41
References
Alvaro, R. (1978). The effectiveness of a science-therapy program on science-anxious
undergraduates. PhD diss., Loyola University Chicago.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4),
561-573.
Angle, J., & Moseley, C. (2012). Science teacher efficacy and outcome expectancy as predictors
of students’ end-of-instruction (EOI) biology I test scores. School Science and
Mathematics, 109(8), 473-483.
Avery, L. M., & Meyer, D. Z. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities
and limits for enhancing preservice elementary teachers' self‐efficacy for science and
science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 112(7), 395-409.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L.
(2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Barroso, C., Ganley, C. M., McGraw, A. L., Geer, E. A., Hart, S. A., & Daucourt, M. C. (2021).
A meta-analysis of the relation between math anxiety and math
achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 147(2), 134-168.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000307
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
42
Bellocchi, A. (2019). Early career science teacher experiences of social bonds and emotional
management. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(3), 322-347.
Bergin, D. A. (2016). Social influences on interest. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 722.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1133306.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006) Motivation and cognitive
engagement in learning environments. In K. Sawyer (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of
the Learning Sciences (1st Edition, pp. 475 - 488) Cambridge University Press: New
York.
Bond, T., Yan, Z., & Heene, M. (2020). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement
in the human sciences. Routledge.
Boone, W. J., Townsend, J. S., & Staver, J. (2011). Using Rasch theory to guide the practice of
survey development and survey data analysis in science education and to inform science
reform efforts: An exemplar utilizing STEBI self‐efficacy data. Science Education, 95(2),
258-280.
Briscoe, C., & Stout, D. (2001). Prospective Elementary Teachers' Use of Mathematical
Reasoning in Solving a Lever Mechanics Problem. School Science and Mathematics,
101(5), 228-235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18025.x
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle
school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271-
285.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
43
Brookhart, S.M. & Nitko, A.J. (2015). Educational Assessment of Students. New Jersey: Pearson
Education Inc.
Bursal, M. (2008). Changes in Turkish pre-service elementary teachers’ personal science
teaching efficacy beliefs and science anxieties during a science method course Journal of
Turkish Science Education, 5(1), 99-112.
Bursal, M. (2012). Changes in American preservice elementary teachers' efficacy beliefs and
anxieties during a science methods course. Science Education International, 23(1), 40-55.
Bursal, M., & Paznokas, L. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and preservice elementary teachers'
confidence to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4),
173-180.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Burnout: Testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of causal
structure across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American Educational
Research Journal, 31(3), 645673. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163231
Chen, J. A., Metcalf, S. J., & Tutwiler, M. S. (2014). Motivation and beliefs about the nature of
scientific knowledge within an immersive virtual ecosystems environment.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 112-123.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.02.004
Chen, J. A., Tutwiler, M. S., Metcalf, S. J., Kamarainen, A., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2016). A
multi-user virtual environment to support students’ self-efficacy and interest in science: a
latent growth model analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1122.
Chen, S.-Y., & Liu, S.-Y. (2020). Using augmented reality to experiment with elements in a
chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106418.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106418
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
44
Cox, C. A., & Carpenter, J. R. (1989). Improving attitudes towards teaching science and
reducing science anxiety through increasing confidence in science ability in inservice
elementary school teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 1(2), 1434.
Czerniak, C. M., & Haney, J. J. (1998). The effect of collaborative concept mapping on
elementary preservice teachers’ anxiety, efficacy, and achievement in physical science.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(4), 30320.
Davidson, S., Jaber, L.Z., & Southerland, S.A. (2020). Emotions in the doing of science:
Exploring epistemic affect in elementary teachers’ science research experiences. Science
Education, 104(6), 1008-1040.
Davis, M. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1008, 25-38.
Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination
theory perspective, in K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The tole of interest in
learning and development (pp. 43-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The
self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119-142.
DeMauro, A. A., & Jennings, P. A. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs and emotional
states. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 21(1), 119-132.
doi:10.1080/13632752.2015.1120057
DeVellis, R. (2011). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Duffy, M. C., Lajoie, S. P., Pekrun, R., & Lachapelle, K. (2020). Emotions in medical education:
Examining the validity of the Medical Emotion Scale (MES) across authentic medical
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
45
learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 70, 101150.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.001
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching
efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and
Mathematics, 90(8), 694-706.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales:
Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of Mathematics by females
and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(5), 324-326.
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senecal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intra-individual changes in
teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 514-525.
Fonseca, D., Martí, N., Redondo, E., Navarro, I., & Sanchez, A. (2014). Relationship between
student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with the use of
augmented reality technology for visualized architecture models. Computers in Human
Behavior, 31, 434445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.006.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge University Press: London, England.
Gardner, L. E., & Leak, G. K. (1994). Characteristics and correlates of teaching anxiety among
college psychology teachers. Teaching of Psychology, 21(1), 28-32.
Gunning, A. M. & Mensah, F. M. (2011). Preservice elementary teachers’ development of self-
efficacy and confidence to teach science: A Case Study. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 22, 171-185.
Hammack, R., & Ivey, T. (2017). Examining elementary teachers’ engineering self‐efficacy and
engineering teacher efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 117(12), 5262.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
46
Hanuscin, D.L., de Araujo, Z., van Garderen, D., Cisterna, D., & Lipsitz, K. (2020). The re-
novicing of elementary teachers in science? Grade level reassignment and teacher PCK.
Journal of Science Teacher Education. DOI: 10.1080/1046560X.2020.1778845
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 111127
Hodgin, C. M. (2014). Science teaching anxiety: The impact of beliefs on teacher preferences of
instructional strategies. (PhD Dissertation), The University of Texas at Austin.
Hopko, D. R. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the math anxiety rating scalerevised.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(2), 336-351.
Horizon Research, Inc. (2019). Highlights from the 2018 NSSME+. Chapel Hill, NC: Author
Kazempour, M., & Sadler, T. D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ science beliefs, attitudes, and self-
efficacy: a multi-case study. Teaching Education, 26(3), 247-271.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal
of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.
Kim, J., Youngs, P., & Frank, K. (2017). Burnout contagion: Is it due to early career teachers’
social networks or organizational exposure? Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 250-
260.
Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Evaluation of learning in science. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings & G. F.
Madaus (Eds.), Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning.
London: McGraw-Hill.
Koka, A., & Hein, V. (2003). Perceptions of teacher’s feedback and learning environment as
predictors of intrinsic motivation in physical education. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 4(4), 333-346.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
47
Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and
findings. International journal of science education, 33(1), 27-50.
Lent, R. W., Paixao, M. P., da Silva, J. T., & Leitao, L. M. (2010). Predicting occupational
interests and choice aspirations in Portuguese high school students: A test of social
cognitive career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 244251
Linacre, J. M. (2021). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program (Version 5.1.7).
Portland, Oregon: Winsteps.com.
Linacre, J. M. (2020). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program User's Guide.
Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com
Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean. Rasch
Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.
Linacre, J. M. (1998). Structure in Rasch residuals: why principal components analysis. Rasch
measurement transactions, 12(2), 636.
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states:
Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression
and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335-343.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U
Lombardi, D., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Emotions about teaching about human-induced climate
change. International Journal of Science Education, 35(1), 167-191.
Loderer, K., Pekrun, R., & Lester, J. C. (2020). Beyond cold technology: A systematic review
and meta-analysis on emotions in technology-based learning environments. Learning and
Instruction, 70, 101162. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.08.002
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
48
Maier, M. F., Greenfield, D. B., & Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J. (2013). Development and validation
of a preschool teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward science teaching questionnaire. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 366-378.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.09.003
Mallow, J. (1981). Science Anxiety: Fear of Science and How to Overcome It. New York, N.Y.:
Thomond.
Michaelis, J.E. (2017). The role of interest and motivation in science investigations and
engineering design instruction. Commissioned paper for the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee on Science Investigations and
Engineering Design for Grades 6-12.
Moser, S. C. (2007). More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate
change information. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change:
Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 64-80). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016). Developing a National
STEM Workforce Strategy: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21900.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies.
Navy, S.L., Luft, J.A., Toerien, R., & Hewson, P.W. (2018) Practices influenced by policy? An
exploration of newly hired science teachers at sites in South Africa and the United States,
International Journal of Science Education, 40(8), 919-939.
doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1457814
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
49
Nixon, R.S., Luft, J.A., & Ross, R.J. (2017). Prevalence and predictors of out-of-field teaching in
the first five years. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1197-1218.
Novak, E., & Wisdom, S. (2018). Effects of 3D printing project-based learning on preservice
elementary teachers’ science attitudes, science content knowledge, and anxiety about
teaching science. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 27(5), 412-432.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9733-5
Oosterheert, I. E., & Vermunt, J.D. (2001). Individual Differences in Learning to Teach:
Relating Cognition, Regulation and Affect. Learning and Instruction, 11, 133-156.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature
and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
doi:10.1080/0950069032000032199
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Exploratory factor analysis of the Mathematics Anxiety
Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 35-47.
Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher
education students. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 337-353.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions,
Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Educational
Psychology Review, 18(4), 315-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Control-value theory of achievement emotions. In
International handbook of emotions in education. (pp. 120-141). Routledge/Taylor &
Francis Group.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
50
Plake, B. S., & Parker, C. S. (1982). The development and validation of a revised version of the
Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42,
551-557.
Radloff, J., & Capobianco, B.M. (2021). Investigating elementary teachers’ tensions and
mitigating strategies related to integrating engineering design-based science instruction.
Research in Science Education, 51 (Suppl 1): S213S232.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9844-x
Rich, P. J., Jones, B. L., Belikov, O., Yoshikawa, E., & Perkins, M. (2017). Computing and
engineering in elementary school: The effect of year‐long training on elementary teacher
self‐efficacy and beliefs about teaching, computing and engineering. International
Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 1(1), 120.
Riegle-Crum, C., Morton, K., Moore, C., Chimonidou, A., Labrake, C., & Kopp, S. (2015). Do
inquiring minds have positive attitudes? The science education of preservice elementary
teachers. Science Education, 99(5), 819-836.
Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., Sandhu, M., Sandhu, S., Hernderson, S., & Roth, W.M. (2013).
Emotional arousal of beginning physic teachers during extended experimental
investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (2), 137-161.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford
University Press.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
51
Ryan, S.V., von der Embse, N.P., Pendergast, L.L., Saeki, E., Segool, N., Schwing, S. (2017).
Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability
policies on turnover intent. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 1-11.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science
Information, 44(4), 695-729.
Schumacker, R. E., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1996). Disattenuating correlation coefficients. Rasch
Measurement Transactions, 10(1), 479.
Senler, B. (2016). Pre-service science teachers' self-efficacy: The role of attitude, anxiety and
locus of control. Australian Council for Educational Research, 60(1), 26-41.
Seung, E., Park, S., & Lee, M.-A. (2019). The impact of a summer camp-based science methods
course on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching science as inquiry. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 872-889.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). InterestThe Curious Emotion. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 17(1), 57-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00548.x
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R.E. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory.
Taylor, J., Banilower, E., & Clayton, G. (2020). National trends in the formal content preparation
of US science teachers: Implications of out-of-field teaching for student outcomes.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(7), 768-779.
Tobin, K. (2012). Sociocultural Perspectives on Science Education. In Second International
Handbook of Science Education, B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), 3-
18, Dordrecht: Springer.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
52
Udo, M. K., Ramsey, G. P., Reynolds-Alpert, S. & Mallow, J. V. (2001). Does physics teaching
affect gender-based science anxiety? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10,
237247.
von der Embse, N., Kilgus, S. P., Solomon, H. J., Bowler, M., & Curtiss, C. (2015). Initial
development and factor structure of the Educator Test Stress Inventory. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 223237.
Watt, H. M. G., Eccles, J. S., & Durik, A. M. (2006). The leaky mathematics pipeline for girls: A
motivational analysis of high school enrolments in Australia and the USA. Equal
Opportunities International, 25, 642659.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610150610719119.
Westerback, M.E. (1982). Studies on attitude toward teaching science an anxiety about teaching
science in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
19(7), 603-616.
Westerback, M.E. (1984). Studies on anxiety about teaching science in preservice elementary
teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(9), 937-950.
Westerback, M. E., & Long, M. J. (1990). Science knowledge and the reduction of anxiety about
teaching earth science in exemplary teachers as measured by the science teaching state-
trait anxiety inventory. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 361-374.
Wright, B. D., Linacre, J. M., Gustafson, J. E., & Martin-Lof, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-
square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.
Yürük, N. (2011). The predictors of preservice elementary teachers’ anxiety about teaching
science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(1), 17-26.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
53
Zaccoletti, S., Altoè, G., & Mason, L. (2020). Enjoyment, anxiety and boredom, and their
control-value antecedents as predictors of reading comprehension. Learning and
Individual Differences, 79, 101869. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101869
Zhang, J., Zhao, N., & Kong, Q. P. (2019). The relationship between math anxiety and math
performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1613).
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01613
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation, 1339. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course
attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845862.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHING ANXIETY SCALE
54
Appendix A
Science Interest Instrument (Deci et al., 1994)
Please read the following questions and choose the answer that best tells how you really feel.
Not
True
Slightly
True
Moderately
True
Mostly
True
Very
True
1. I find science enjoyable
1
2
3
4
5
2. Science is just not interesting to me
1
2
3
4
5
3. I like doing work in my science
class
1
2
3
4
5
4. I like learning new things about
science
1
2
3
4
5
5. In general, I find working on
science projects to be interesting
1
2
3
4
5
... commonly held feelings of uneasiness, worry, and/or nervousness towards teaching science and by extension STEM lessons (Novak et al., 2022;Novak & Wisdom, 2018). ...
... Widely accepted research findings have established a connection between teacher anxiety and interest in science education (Deci et al., 1994;Deci & Ryan, 1985), competence towards science, technology, and engineering standards (Novak et al., 2022;Novak & Wisdom, 2018), and teaching self-efficacy (Enochs & Riggs, 1990). As educational technology has evolved from blackboards and chalk to interactive digital animations, K-12 educators have found themselves technology's usefulness in achieving learning objectives. ...
... The progressive development through periodic struggle is grounded in constructivist theory of going from not knowing how to do something to being progressively adept or skilled as learners practice with concepts, and experience different instructional strategies (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Moreover, it is important to recognize content knowledge mastery is predominantly modeled by a teacher's existing ability and skill level, which prior research has directly tied to feelings of anxiety, selfefficacy, and competence (Deci et al., 1994;Deci & Ryan, 1985;Enochs & Riggs, 1990;Novak et al., 2022;Westerback, 1984). Thus, prior experience with digital modeling technology should afford teachers a foundation on which to assist learners through challenges, roadblocks, and limitations with sincere positive affirmations. ...
Article
Full-text available
Much of the research within K-12 STEM teacher education and integrated STEM instructional design (ID) involves illuminating how STEM subjects can be integrated to bridge gaps between methodological and pedagogical practices. ID involving the engineering design process within K-12 classrooms generally guides students through prototyping mechanical devices using everyday objects and/or 3D printing. One universal engineering process involved in STEM educational curriculum is modeling using computer aided design (CAD) software such as Tinkercad (a popular software in K-12 settings). This study focuses on the application of 3D modeling as a learning activity within an undergraduate biology course designed to prepare pre-service teachers to facilitate life science learning activities in their future classrooms. A mix methods approach was taken to explain the impact of Tinkercad modeling on anxiety for facilitating integrated STEM activities as well as pre-service teacher self-efficacy, confidence in, and competency for teaching integrated STEM. Analysis of student responses to survey questions, field notes, and informal interviews suggest that utilization of modeling software divorced of 3D printing, though conducive to reducing integrated STEM facilitation anxiety, has a limited effect on improving pre-service teacher self-efficacy, confidence in, and competency regarding leading integrated STEM learning activities targeted towards engaging learners in science exploration. However, participant comments on 3D modeling software usability, application within K-12 science learning environments, and perceived K-6 classroom strengths provide important commentary on likelihood of STEM resources such as Tinkercad being adopted into future classrooms.
... Research efforts in teacher education emphasise the need to better prepare elementary teachers to teach science by providing opportunities to learn science content and to help them re-evaluate their own science learning experiences within the context of meaningful 'learning to teach' experiences that also help them feel less anxious about science teaching (Avraamidou, 2013;Bransford et al., 2000;Hulings, 2022;Novak et al., 2022). For this study, we designed a PSET education science content and methods course that teaches about the nature of science and scientific inquiry in the context of inquiry activities as well as engaging in technologically-enhanced online units centred on chemistry and physical science concepts. ...
... In contrast with science anxiety, science interest plays an important role in elementary science teaching as teacher motivation to do science with their students is positively correlated with their interest in science and general attitudes towards science (Senler, 2016). For example, Novak et al. (2022) found that the science teaching anxiety of PSETs was significantly and negatively related to science teaching self-efficacy and science interest. In other words, teachers with high self-efficacy in teaching science and high interest in science had low science-teaching anxiety. ...
... In other words, teachers with high self-efficacy in teaching science and high interest in science had low science-teaching anxiety. Therefore, science interest can be seen as a variable that motivates teachers to spend more time doing science with their students (Novak et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Having a negative attitude toward science plays a major factor in elementary teachers avoiding teaching science in elementary school. This mixed methods study examined changes in pre-service elementary teachers' (PSETs) attitudes toward teaching science. PSETs (n=59) engaged in a semester-long university course in the Southeastern United States. The course focused on demonstrating and applying knowledge of scientific concepts and inquiry-based teaching. PSETs took a Dimension of Attitudes toward Science (DAS) questionnaire before and after the course. Six of the PSETs were interviewed in a focus group and asked how the course impacted their attitudes toward science. Data were analysed quantitatively through frequency of responses and mean values. Qualitative analysis was done through concurrent triangulation design analysis of focus group interviews and survey responses. Results show that PSETs had more positive attitudes toward science in feelings attached to teaching science and their confidence in teaching science. Follow-up focus group interviews indicated that some of the PSETs highlighted verbal persuasion, the Cognitive Pedagogical Mastery (CPM) experience of engaging in hands-on activities, and the Cognitive Content Mastery (CCM) experience of using learning technologies as factors in positive changes in self-efficacy and feelings toward teaching science. Implications for PSETs methods courses are discussed .
... These scales consist of the SAQ from 44 items, SAS from 28 items and ASST from 21 items. Scales were developed to measure science anxiety at high school (Mehar & Singh, 2018) and university level (Novak et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study is to adapt "Abbreviated Science Anxiety Scale"(ASAS) developed by Megreya et al. (2021) to Turkish and to investigate the reliability and validity of Turkish-ASAS. In the adaptation study, some steps were determined and implemented. After the English-Turkish translation validity of ASAS was ensured, data were collected within the scope of the survey study for reliability and validity studies. The study group in the scale adaptation study are experts (teaching staff in science education, Science teacher, and English teacher) and 410 middle school students (Grade 5, 6, 7 and 8). After the descriptive statistics and item analysis were made, the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was performed to reveal the factor structure. The adaptation stage findings shows the two-factor structure of ASAS. These factors are "learning science anxiety" and "science evaluation anxiety". Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient for ASAS-Turkish was calculated as 0.703. As in the original scale, ASAS-Turkish is a 5-point Likert type scale and consisting of 9 items. The results show that ASAS-Turkish is a short, valid and reliable tool. Low scores on the ASAS indicate low anxiety and high scores indicate high anxiety. It can be used to guide and enhance scientific study.
... Mathematics interest of preservice ECE teachers is positively correlated with mathematics confidence and motivation (Liu & Pourdavood, 2018). Science interest of preservice ECE teachers is a significant predictor of science teaching self-efficacy (Novak et al., 2022). Early experiences in engineering design increase engineering interest (Pattison et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Computer science can be included in Early Childhood Education (ECE) through the use of block-based coding and robots. But this requires adequate preparation of ECE teachers to work with coding and robots, and integrate such into high quality lesson plans. In this paper, we investigate predictors of lesson plan quality among preservice, early childhood teachers learning to teach with robots. Motivation variables, academic standing, and collaboration status during lesson planning were entered as predictors of overall lesson plan quality, front-end analysis quality, STEM and robotics integration quality, and instructional activities quality. Achievement emotions in STEM was a positive predictor and mathematics interest was a negative predictor of the overall lesson plan quality score. Achievement emotions in STEM was a significant positive predictor of front-end analysis score. Science and technology interest and individual lesson planning were significant positive predictors of teaching and learning activities design score. Instructional implications are presented.
... The separations of these two sub-scales were above 3.1 and 2.5 for persons and 4.2 and 8.4 for items, also above the recommended values for separation (Bond & Fox, 2015). Regarding item goodness of fit, all infit and outfit MNSQ for both the two sub-scales were within the range from 0.70 to 1.30, indicating good item fitness (Novak, Soyturk, & Navy, 2022;Papini et al., 2023). Details of the infit and outfit NMSQ are shown in Table 10. ...
Article
Cyberchondria, involving the excessive and compulsive seeking of health information, has garnered escalating attention in recent years. One model proposes cyberchondria as an addictive behavior, and craving is considered a key driver of addictive behaviors. However, craving has yet to be systematically studied in the context of cyberchondria. Therefore, this study aimed to conceptualize a contruct of health information craving, develop, and validate a health information craving scale, intended for subsequent empirical examinations in the context of cyber-chondria. We employed a rigorous multi-step procedure for scale development and validation, conducting three separate studies with 1633 participants. The resulting scale of health information craving exhibited a multi-dimensional structure with positive and negative reinforcing sub-scales, as confirmed through diverse reliability and validity assessments. As expected, the scale demonstrated a positive relationship with individuals' cyberchondria, thus providing support for the nomological validity of the developed scale. Furthermore, the findings suggest that health information craving should be considered a related but distinct concept from another similar concept, health information need, thereby offering further support for its operationali-zation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
... Regarding teachers' occupational anxiety, studies had found that the types were mainly related to subject anxiety, such as mathematics (Peker and Ertekin, 2011;Ganley et al., 2019;Bosica, 2022), English (Liu and Wu, 2021), and science (Novak et al., 2022). For example, Bosica (2022) investigated mathematics teaching anxiety and mathematics anxiety among in-service elementary school teachers in Ontario. ...
Article
Full-text available
Teachers’ occupational anxiety is a kind of negative emotional state of teachers, which is prevalent in Chinese teachers. Unfortunately, in the existing research, teachers’ occupational anxiety caused by China’s ‘double reduction’ policy has not been paid attention to. Based on the grounded theory, this study conducted in-depth interviews with 45 in-service primary and junior high school teachers, and used NVivo 12 to process recording materials. Through a series of steps such as open coding, axial coding and selective coding, we found that the core feature of teachers’ occupational anxiety caused by the ‘double reduction’ policy was that the implementation of the ‘double reduction’ policy was incomplete matching the actual educational ecology. Then we constructed a theoretical model of the formation mechanism of teachers’ occupational anxiety caused by the ‘double reduction’ policy. The study showed that due to the influence of teachers’ own personality characteristics and incomplete match between external factors, although teachers insisted on self-adjustment, it was difficult to fundamentally solve the teachers’ occupational anxiety caused by the ‘double reduction’ policy.
... Science teachers' perceived beliefs in teaching skills to create an effective and productive learning environment and increase students' success and motivation are expressed as science teaching selfefficacy (Özkan et al., 2002). Teachers with high self-efficacy in teaching science have a high interest in science (Novak et al., 2022), they prefer student-centered strategies and out-of-school learning activities in teaching science concepts (Laat & Watters, 1995). In addition, there is a direct positive relationship between science teaching self-efficacy and using inquiry science teaching practices, job satisfaction, and scientific literacy (Walag et al., 2022;Perera et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
In this study, the role of science and computational thinking (CT) in teaching self-efficacy and design thinking variables were examined to explain the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) knowledge forms needed by science teachers for integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) within the framework of the TPACK framework. 216 teachers working as science teachers in Turkey participated in the research. In the study, data were collected in an electronic form consisting of five parts. The model proposed in the research was tested with the partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method. The research showed that the self-efficacy of science teachers was related to technological pedagogical engineering knowledge (TPEK), T- integrated (I) STEM, and technological pedagogical science knowledge (TPSK). In addition, the self-efficacy of science teachers is also effective in design thinking. CT teaching self-efficacy has a positive effect on design thinking and the development of technological pedagogical mathematics knowledge (TPMK), TPEK, and TPSK structures. Design thinking skill is also related to TPMK, TPEK, and TPSK structures. These results can be a guide to ensure the effectiveness of professional development programs that will be prepared to improve science teachers’ integrated STEM competencies.
... Keskin et al. (2016) found in their research that the scientific literacy level of the students is higher than the grade level. According to Novak et al. (2022), science teaching anxiety was significantly and negatively related to science teaching self-efficacy and science interest. In the study conducted by Çetin (2016), it was found that pre-service teachers found themselves at a sufficient level in terms of digital literacy, that male pre-service teachers had higher digital literacy levels than female pre-service teachers and pre-service teachers studying in undergraduate education were higher than pre-service teachers studying in the pedagogical formation program. ...
Article
Science events are encountered in every phase of daily life. These science events can be encountered at home, in business life, or while studying at school. Human beings can learn about these scientific events both informally and formally. Science-related events can often be confusing, even when formally learned. This study, it was aimed to develop a CRPS to investigate whether they learned some science events correctly in daily life. The study was carried out on 313 people from different age and occupational groups living in Edirne, Turkey. To develop a scale, statistical data such as item-total correlation (rit) and item-remainder correlation (rir) coefficients analysis, discrimination analysis, frequency and % values for the answers given by the participants to the items, t-test, Rulon and Cronbach Alpha coefficient transactions have been made. The scale, which started with 35 items, was reduced to 30 items due to the analysis. Cronbach Alpha and Rulon reliability coefficients were found to be 0.85 and 0.87, respectively. It was understood that the scale showed a symmetric-homogeneous distribution. According to these data, it has been determined that some scientific events in daily life can be measured with the knowledge-based approach.
Article
Self-efficacy is one of the important variables for teachers’ professional development. However, there have been few studies investigating the relationship between anxiety related to teaching science, interest in science, and self-efficacy. Therefore, this study aimed to explore this relationship with preservice teachers. The researchers used a path analysis model, descriptive statistics, correlations, and a path diagram to analyze the data. The results revealed that outcome expectancy positively predicted personal self-efficacy beliefs, and variables accounted for 64.0% of the variance in personal self-efficacy. Personal science-teaching self-efficacy has no significant direct relationship with science-teaching anxiety or interest in science. Specifically, anxiety has a small positive effect on personal science-teaching self-efficacy. Interest in science does not directly predict personal self-efficacy efficacy beliefs. Anxiety related to teaching science had a major negative effect on interest in science and a minor positive impact on outcome expectancy. The results also showed that personal self-efficacy beliefs depend profoundly on perceptions of outcome expectancy rather than directly on teaching anxiety or science interest levels per se. These findings are noteworthy for future research that aims to boost teachers’ science-teaching self-efficacy. Recommendations are made based on these findings.
Article
Full-text available
Meta-analyses from the 1990s previously have established a significant, small-to-moderate, and negative correlation between math achievement and math anxiety. Since these publications, research has continued to investigate this relation with more diverse samples and measures. Thus, the goal of the present meta-analysis was to provide an update of the math anxiety-math achievement relation and its moderators. Analyzing 747 effect sizes accumulated from research conducted between 1992 and 2018, we found a small-to-moderate, negative, and statistically significant correlation (r = -.28) between math anxiety and math achievement. The relation was significant for all moderator subgroups, with the exception of the relation between math anxiety and assessments measuring the approximate number system. Grade level, math ability level, adolescent/adult math anxiety scales, math topic of anxiety scale, and math assessments were significant moderators of this relation. There is also a tendency for published studies to report significantly stronger correlations than unpublished studies, but overall, large, negative effect sizes are underreported. Our results are consistent with previous findings of a significant relation between math anxiety and math achievement. This association starts in childhood, remains significant through adulthood, is smaller for students in Grades 3 through 5 and postsecondary school, is larger for math anxiety than for statistics anxiety and for certain math anxiety scales, and is smaller for math exam grades and samples selected for low math ability. This work supports future research efforts to determine effective math achievement and math anxiety interventions, which may be most helpful to implement during childhood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Article
Full-text available
Math anxiety (MA) has been suggested to decrease the math performance of students. However, it remains unclear what factors moderate this relationship. The aim of this research was to explore the link between MA and math performance. Studies that explored the math anxiety-performance link, conducted from 2000 to 2019 (84 samples, N = 8680), were identified and statistically integrated with a meta-analysis method. The results indicated a robust negative math anxiety-performance link. Furthermore, regarding the analysis of moderator variables, this negative link was stronger in the studies that involved Asian students, but this link was the weakest in the studies that involved European students. Moreover, this negative link was stronger in the studies within a senior high school group, whereas it was the weakest in the studies within an elementary group. Finally, this negative link was strongest among studies that used a custom test and studies that assessed problem-solving skills. Potential explanations and implications for research and practice are discussed.
Article
A critical component to disciplinary engagement in science is that of epistemic affect—learning how to feel as scientists do when engaged in their work. The emotional responses, feelings, and dispositions that emerge as one participates in the construction of knowledge are part and parcel to the experiences of scientists and, we argue, should be integral to the experiences of science learners—and their teachers—as well. As such, this study takes the position that teachers must have opportunities to encounter, understand, and appreciate the epistemic affect in science to support students in navigating their affect in the science classroom. Through analysis of field observations and semistructured interviews conducted during a 6‐week Research Experience for Teachers program, this study examines how four elementary teachers experience an epistemic affect over the course of their engagement in scientific research. The findings of the study highlight that engaging in science research afforded teachers rich opportunities to experience epistemic affect, ranging from frustration, perseverance, and ultimately pride in their work. We argue such firsthand affective experiences within professional development programs featuring participation in science research hold important implications for teachers' instructional practice and orientations to their students as thinkers, doers, and learners of science.
Book
This volume follows the publication of Rasch Analysis in the Human Sciences. This new book presents additional topics not discussed in the previous volume. It examines key topics such as partial credit analysis of data, common person linking, computing equating constants, investigating discrimination, evaluating dimensionality, how to better utilize Wright Maps, how to design tests and surveys using Rasch theory, and many more. The book includes activities which can be used to practice the theme of each chapter and to test the reader’s understanding of Rasch techniques. Beginning and ending with a conversation between two students, each chapter provides clear step-by-step instructions as to how to conduct an analysis using the chapter theme. The chapters emphasize applications for the beginner learning Rasch and provide guidance for composing a write-up of an analysis for a presentation, paper, thesis or report. This book explores in detail many important yet often rarely discussed topics in Rasch. With its easy-to-read language and engaging format it reaches a wide audience of scientists, clinicians, students, researchers and psychometricians, providing a valuable toolkit for practical users of Rasch analysis. – Dr. Eva Fenwick, Clinical Research Fellow, Singapore Eye Research Institute (SERI) Assistant Professor, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore It is an easy to read book and provides immediate guidance for those wishing to conduct a Rasch analysis. The “conversations” between students in each chapter provides a welcome introduction to each topic. – Prof. Maik Walpuski, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany The lessons learned in their first book are extended by providing insightful demonstrations of some of the more complex concepts and techniques used in applying Rasch models. – Dr. Michael R. Peabody, National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, Illinois, USA I am amazed with the ability of these authors to communicate complicated knowledge, and the ability to make this highly complicated knowledge accessible to new learners guiding every step of the way. Through this book we get important knowledge about techniques and the different areas of use for Rasch methods in the human sciences This is truly an important book for students and researchers. – Prof. Charlotte Ringsmose, Aalborg University, Denmark
Article
There is growing recognition of the prevalence of “within school churn”, a phenomenon in which teachers remain within a school but are assigned a new grade level or course. In this study we examine the consequences of within-school churn for the pedagogical content knowledge of elementary teacher participants in an NSF-funded science PD program. We argue grade-level reassignment is akin to out-of-field science teaching for elementary teachers, as they encounter a new set of grade-specific standards, new subject matter topics, and new curricula. We observed that elementary teachers can be “re-noviced” when assigned to a new grade level, in that they may lack content knowledge and/or pedagogical content knowledge for teaching their new science topics. Nonetheless, we argue there are important similarities between experienced and reassigned teachers that merit consideration of their unique professional learning needs in comparison to novice teachers.
Article
This study used nationally representative data from the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (8th-grade Science) and the 2018 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education toward two primary purposes: (a) to examine the association between teachers’ formal (university) content preparation in science and student outcomes in science, and (b) to document the prevalence and locality of Out-of-Field (OoF) science teaching in the US. The relationship between teachers’ formal science preparation and students’ 8th-grade science outcomes was mixed across science disciplines with a statistically significant association being observed for students’ earth science outcomes. Teachers’ experience teaching science and access to science instructional materials/kits were more strongly associated with student outcomes than was their formal content preparation, with statistically significant associations observed for all student outcomes (physical science, life science, and earth science). The prevalence of OoF science teaching was higher in middle schools than in high schools, as well as more frequently occurring in historically lower achieving and impoverished educational contexts.
Article
The use of augmented reality (AR) in education is an emerging trend aimed at improving students' learning outcomes and affective factors. This study further investigated the effects of AR learning activities combined with different approaches, including teacher-centered demonstration and student-centered hands-on, on the conceptual understanding of chemistry and interest in science. Participants of this study included 104 ninth graders from four classes at a junior high school, who were taught by the same chemistry teacher. A quasi-experimental research design was conducted to compare students' pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest scores. Statistical findings were further supplemented by student interviews toward the activities. Results showed that the hands-on learning group performed significantly better on the chemical reactions concept test and interest questionnaire of the immediate posttest than the demonstration learning group. Retention effects also revealed that the students’ conceptual understanding of chemical elements remained effective four months after completion of the learning activities. No significant decline of situational interest and a slightly upward trend of individual interest were found in both groups. According to the interview responses, students were satisfied with the hands-on activities and appreciated the opportunity to be active learners. From this study, hands-on AR could serve as a promising strategy to motivate students in learning chemistry not only for immediate effectiveness but longstanding influence.
Article
Reading comprehension is one of several vital activities necessary to success in contemporary formal education systems. This study aims to investigate the links between the three achievement emotions of enjoyment, anxiety, and boredom, and their control-value antecedents to reading comprehension. One hundred and fifty-two 5th graders completed a self-report for control-value antecedents, the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire-Elementary School (AEQ-ES) for reading-specific achievement emotions, and performed a reading comprehension task. Gender, non-verbal skills, vocabulary knowledge, and decoding skills were also considered as potentially confounding variables. Results from a path analysis revealed that the control antecedent explained about 3% of the variability in reading comprehension and anxiety partially mediated the relationship between control and reading comprehension, explaining 3% of the variance. Specifically, perceived control of reading comprehension negatively predicted anxiety, which in turn negatively predicted students' performance in a reading comprehension task. These findings highlight the contribution of anxiety to reading comprehension when controlling for gender and cognitive measures. Implications for educational practice are discussed regarding teaching strategies to self-regulate anxiety and, indirectly, promote students' reading comprehension.