New Perspectives in Science Education

Validity and Reliability of the Science Motivation Questionnaire II (SMQ II) in the Context of a Japanese University

Diego Tavares Vasques, University of Tokyo (Japan)

Lui Yoshida, University of Tokyo (Japan)

James Ellinger, University of Tokyo (Japan)

John Maninang, University of Tokyo (Japan)

Abstract

Publication is an obligatory step in scientific research. Scientific writing courses for learners of English as second language are uniquely burdened with the two-pronged objectives of developing the students’ language proficiency and skill for critical analysis. Evidence has shown that the likelihood of achieving these objectives is seen in highly motivated students. In the present study, we adapted the Science Motivation Questionnaire II (SMQ II) to understand the motivating factors for first-year students enrolled in a scientific writing course in a research university in Japan. This course focuses on the acquisition of writing skills necessary to publish academic papers based on original research. The SMQ II was adapted and translated from English to Japanese. We assessed its validity and reliability based on the responses of 203 participants using the following statistical indicators: Cronbach’s alpha, CFI, GFI and RMSEA. The results revealed high reliability (α > 0.8) for the adapted questionnaire. However, we have identified a low congruence to the original model, which warrants further investigation. This presentation will describe how the questionnaire was adapted to the context of this university and how the applied changes influenced the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

Keywords: motivation, academic writing, English language learning;

References

[1] Dornyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Teaching and researching: Motivation. Routledge.

[2] Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science motivation questionnaire: construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of research in science teaching, 46(2), 127-146.

[3] Young C., Lo G., Young K., Borsetta A. FormScanner: Open-Source Solution for Grading Multiple-Choice Exams. The Physics Teacher 2015; 54: 34–5. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4937970.

[4] Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(10), 1159-1176.

[5] DeVellis, R. F. (2006). Classical test theory. Medical care, 44(11), S50-S59.

[6] Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

[7] Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National Educational Resources.

[8] Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.

[9] Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

[10] Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. Bmj, 314 (7080), 572.

[11] Tavakol, M., & Dennik, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53.

[12] Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling, 466–497, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

[13] Ushioda, E. (2013). Foreign language motivation research in Japan: An ‘insider’ perspective from outside Japan. Language learning motivation in Japan, 1-14.

Back to the list

New Perspectives in Science Education

Media Partners: