- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Development and validation of an astronomy self-efficacy instrument for understanding and doing

Rachel Freed, David McKinnon, Michael Fitzgerald, and Christina M. Norris

  • School of Education, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup Western Australia 6027, Australia

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010117 – Published 28 February, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010117

Abstract

This paper presents a new astronomy self-efficacy instrument, composed of two factors; one relating to learning astronomy content, which we call astronomy personal self-efficacy, and the other relating to the use of astronomical instrumentation, specifically the use of remote robotic telescopes for data collection. The latter is referred to as the astronomy instrumental self-efficacy factor. The instrument has been tested for reliability and construct validity. Reliability testing showed that factor 1 had a Cronbach’s α of 0.901 and factor 2 had a Cronbach’s α of 0.937. Construct validity was established by computing one-way analyses of variances, with the p value suitably protected, using independent variables peripherally related to the constructs. These analyses demonstrate that both scales possess high construct validity. The development of this astronomy specific instrument is an important step in evaluating self-efficacy as a precursor to investigating the construct of science identity in the field of astronomy.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

See Also

Confirmatory factor analysis of two self-efficacy scales for astronomy understanding and robotic telescope use

R. Freed, D. H. McKinnon, M. T. Fitzgerald, and S. Salimpour
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020164 (2023)

Self-efficacy changes and gender effects on self-efficacy in a large-scale robotic telescope focused curriculum

Rachel Freed, David McKinnon, Saeed Salimpour, Michael Fitzgerald, Dan Reichart, and Christina Norris
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010137 (2024)

Article Text

References (124)

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, Washington, DC, 1993). Retrieved November 15, 2020, https://www.aaas.org/resources/benchmarks-science-literacy.
  2. NGSS Lead States, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States (The National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2013). Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org.
  3. J. Osborne, S. Simon, and S. Collins, Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 1049 (2003).
  4. National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Cross-Cutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  5. National Science Foundation, Science, and Engineering Indicators 2018 (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 2018). Retrieved from February 28, 2019, https://nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/elementary-and-secondary-mathematics-and-science-education/highlights.
  6. K. Williamson, T. Rector, and J. Lowenthal, Embedding climate change engagement in astronomy education and research, An independent submission to Astro2020, the Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey (2019), https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.08043.
  7. T. M. Akram, A. Ijaz, and H. Ikram, Exploring the factors responsible for declining students’ interest in chemistry, Int. J. Info. Educ. Technol. 7, 88 (2017).
  8. S. Tröbst, T. Kleickmann, K. Lange-Schubert, A. Rothkopf, and K. Möller, Instruction and students’ declining interest in science: An analysis of German fourth and sixth-grade classrooms, Am. Educ. Res. J. 53, 162 (2016).
  9. J. H. Falk, N. Staus, L. D. Dierking, W. Penuel, J. Wyld, and D. Bailey, Understanding youth STEM interest pathways within a single community: The Synergies project, Int. J. Sci. Educ., Part B 6, 369 (2016).
  10. A. Krapp and M. Prenzel, Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 27 (2011).
  11. A. Krapp, Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations, Learning Instr. 15, 381 (2005).
  12. J. N. Schinske, H. Perkins, A. Snyder, and M. Wyer, Scientist spotlight homework assignments shift students’ stereotypes of scientists and enhance science identity in a diverse introductory science class, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, ar47 (2016).
  13. L. Martin-Hansen, Examining ways to meaningfully support students in STEM, Int. J. STEM Educ. 5, 53 (2018).
  14. A. Y. Kim and G. M. Sinatra, Science identity development: An interactionist approach, Int. J. STEM Educ. 5, 51 (2018).
  15. M. Beier and A. Rittmayer, Literature overview: Motivational factors in STEM: Interest and self-concept (Assessing Women and Men in Engineering, 2008), http://aweonline.org/arp_selfconcept_overview_122208_002.pdf.
  16. S. Glynn, P. Brickman, N. Armstrong, and G. Taasoobshirazi, Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 1159 (2011).
  17. S. Glynn, G. Taasoobshirazi, and P. Brickman, Science motivation questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 127 (2009).
  18. P. Potvin and A. Hasni, Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research, Studies Sci. Educ. 50, 85 (2014).
  19. L. Archer, J. DeWitt, J. Osborne, J. Dillon, B. Willis, and B. Wong, “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity, Sci. Educ. 94, 617 (2010).
  20. J. Deehan, The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instruments (STEBI A and B): A Comprehensive Review of Methods and Findings from 25 Years of Science Education Research (Springer International Publishing, New York, 2016).
  21. M.-T. Wang and J. L. Degol, Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 119 (2017).
  22. P. Doerschuk, C. Bahrim, J. Daniel, J. Kruger, J. Mann, and C. Martin, Closing the gaps and filling the STEM pipeline: A multidisciplinary approach, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 25, 682 (2016).
  23. M. Dembo and S. Gibson, Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement, Elementary School J. 86, 173 (1985).
  24. A. L. Govett, Teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Analyzing the impact of a teacher enhancement program in changing attitudes and perceptions of science and scientific research, Ph.D. thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 2001.
  25. G. Shroyer, I. Riggs, and L. Enochs, The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher self–efficacy and outcome expectancy, Sci. Educ. 79, 63 (1995).
  26. M. Stears, A. James, and M.-A. Good, Teachers as learners: A case study of teachers’ understanding of astronomy concepts and processes in an ACE course, S. Afr. J. High. Educ. 25, 568 (2011).
  27. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1997).
  28. M. Feder, One Decade, One Million more STEM Graduates 25, 2019 (2012), from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/12/18/one-decade-one-million-more-stem-graduates.
  29. A. Bandura and R. H. Walters, Social Learning Theory (Prentice- Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977), Vol. 1.
  30. A. Bandura, Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales, Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents 5, 307–337 (2006).
  31. E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997).
  32. A. Hasni and P. Potvin, Student’s interest in science and technology and its relationships with teaching methods, family context and self-efficacy, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 10, 337 (2015).
  33. D. P. Cartrette and B. M. Melroe-Lehrman, Describing changes in undergraduate students’ preconceptions of research activities, Res. Sci. Educ. 42, 1073 (2012).
  34. L. J. Rennie, D. Goodrum, and M. Hackling, Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study, Res. Sci. Educ. 31, 455 (2001).
  35. L. Smyth, F. Davila, T. Sloan, E. Rykers, S. Backwell, and S. B. Jones, How science really works: The student experience of research-led education, Higher Educ. 72, 191 (2016).
  36. Council on Undergraduate Research Issues Updated Definition of Undergraduate Research, | General News—News | Council on Undergraduate Research (2021), https://www.cur.org/council_on_undergraduate_research_issues_updated_definition_of_undergraduate_research/.
  37. M. C. Linn, E. Palmer, A. Baranger, E. Gerard, and E. Stone, Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities, Science 347, 1261757 (2015).
  38. C. B. Russell and G. C. Weaver, A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: Impacts on understanding of the nature of science, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 12, 57 (2011).
  39. O. A. Adedokun, A. B. Bessenbacher, L. C. Parker, L. L. Kirkham, and W. D. Burgess, Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research careers: Mediating effects of research self-efficacy, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50, 940 (2013).
  40. T. Perez, J. G. Cromley, and A. Kaplan, The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention, J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 315 (2014).
  41. R. D. Robnett, M. M. Chemers, and E. L. Zurbriggen, Longitudinal associations among undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 52, 847 (2015).
  42. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado learning attitudes about science survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010101 (2006).
  43. M. J. Graham, J. Frederick, A. Byars-Winston, A. B. Hunter, and J. Handelsman, Increasing persistence of college students in STEM, Science 341, 1455 (2013).
  44. A. S. Trotter, D. E. Reichart, and A. P. LaCluzye, Factors contributing to attitudinal gains in introductory astronomy courses, in Proceedings of Robotic Telescopes, Student Research and Education 2 (2018).
  45. J. S. Eccles, Understanding women’s educational, and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles, et al. model of achievement-related choices, Psychol. Women Q. 18, 585 (1994).
  46. R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett, Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance, J. Vocat. Behav. 45, 79 (1994).
  47. J. R. Cordova, G. M. Sinatra, S. H. Jones, G. Taasoobshirazi, and D. Lombardi, Confidence in prior knowledge, self-efficacy, interest and prior knowledge: Influences on conceptual change, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 39, 164 (2014).
  48. J. A. Dole and G. M. Sinatra, Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge, Educational Psychol. 33, 109 (1998).
  49. S. Bartlett, M. T. Fitzgerald, D. H. McKinnon, L. Danaia, and J. Lazendic-Galloway, Astronomy and Science Student Attitudes (ASSA): A short review and validation of a new instrument, J. Astron. Earth Sci. Educ. 5, 1 (2018).
  50. A. Bandura, On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited, J. Manage. 38, 9 (2012).
  51. V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 1096 (2012).
  52. R. E. Bleicher, Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers, School Sci. Math. 104, 383 (2004).
  53. M. Tschannen-Moran, A. W. Hoy, and W. K. Hoy, Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure, Rev. Educ. Res. 68, 202 (1998).
  54. R. E. Bleicher, Nurturing confidence in preservice elementary science teachers, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 18, 841 (2007).
  55. N. G. Lederman and J. S. Lederman, The status of preservice science teacher education: A global perspective, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 26, 1 (2015).
  56. C. M. Norris, Exploring the impact of postgraduate preservice primary science education on students’ self-efficacy, Ph.D. thesis, Edith Cowan University, 2017 (unpublished).
  57. M. Braund and M. Driver, Pupils’ perceptions of practical science in primary and secondary school: Implications for improving progression and continuity of learning, Educ. Res. 47, 77 (2005).
  58. A. Emvalotis and A. Koutsianou, Greek primary school students’ images of scientists and their work: Has anything changed?, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 36, 69 (2018).
  59. C. P. Tan, H. t. Van der Molen, and H. g. Schmidt, A measure of professional identity development for professional education, Studies Higher Educ. 42, 1504 (2017).
  60. J. Zhai, J. A. Jocz, and A.-L. Tan, ‘Am I Like a Scientist?’: Primary children’s images of doing science in school, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 553 (2014).
  61. J. E. Stets and P. J. Burke, Identity theory and social identity theory, Social Psychol. Quart. 63, 224 (2000).
  62. B. A. Brown, J. M. Reveles, and G. J. Kelly, Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning, Sci. Educ. 89, 779 (2005).
  63. A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles, Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 68 (2000).
  64. J. Eccles, Special Issue, Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action, Motivation and Identity 44, 78 (2009).
  65. A. V. Maltese and R. H. Tai, Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 669 (2010).
  66. A. Colantonio, I. Marzoli, E. Puddu, S. Bardelli, M. T. Fulco, S. Galano, L. Terranegra, and I. Testa, Describing astronomy identity of upper primary and middle school students through structural equation modeling, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010139 (2021).
  67. Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
  68. D. Lopatto, Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6, 297 (2007).
  69. E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1999).
  70. D. I. Hanauer and E. L. Dolan, The Project ownership survey: Measuring differences in scientific inquiry experiences, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 149 (2014).
  71. D. K. C. Trundle, Teaching science during the early childhood years, 5. National Geographic Learning, Cengage. Boston, MA, http://ngspscience.com/profdev/Monographs/SCL22-0429A_SCI_AM_Trundle_lores.pdf.
  72. K. Green, K. C. Trundle, and M. Shaheen, Integrating the arts into science teaching and learning: A literature review, J. Learning through the Arts 14 (2019).
  73. N. A. Falk, P. J. Rottinghaus, T. N. Casanova, F. H. Borgen, and N. E. Betz, Expanding women’s participation in STEM: Insights from parallel measures of self-efficacy and interests, J. Career Assess. 25, 571 (2017).
  74. L. T. Ko, R. R. Kachchaf, A. K. Hodari, and M. Ong, Agency of women of color in physics and astronomy: strategies for persistence and success, J. Women Minorities Sci. Engineering 20, 171 (2014).
  75. J. C. Palmer, The efficacy of planetarium experiences to teach specific science concepts, Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2007.
  76. M. Porche, J. M. Grossman, and K. C. Dupaya, New American scientists: First generation immigration status and college STEM aspirations, J. Women Minorities Sci. Engineering 22, 1 (2016).
  77. C. van Tuijl and J. H. W. van der Molen, Study choice and career development in STEM fields: An overview and integration of the research, Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 26, 159 (2016).
  78. J. Legewie and T. A. DiPrete, The high school environment and the gender gap in science and engineering, Sociol. Educ. 87, 259 (2014).
  79. S. González-Pérez, R. Mateos de Cabo, and M. Sáinz, Girls in STEM: Is it a female role-model thing?, Front. Psychol. 11, 1 (2020).
  80. L. J. Kewley, Closing the gender gap in the Australian astronomy workforce, Nat. Astron. 5, 615 (2021).
  81. L. Archer, J. DeWitt, J. Osborne, J. Dillon, B. Willis, and B. Wong, Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science, Am. Educ. Res. J. 49, 881 (2012).
  82. M. Ghee, M. Keels, D. Collins, C. Neal-Spence, and E. Baker, Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, ar28 (2016).
  83. A. J. Gonsalves, Exploring how gender figures the identity trajectories of two doctoral students in observational astrophysics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010146 (2018).
  84. R. Ivie, S. White, and R. Y. Chu, Women’s and men’s career choices in astronomy and astrophysics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020109 (2016).
  85. A. M. Porter and R. Ivie, Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2019 Report (, College Park, MD, 2019), p. 45.
  86. R. S. Barthelemy, M. McCormick, and C. Henderson, Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020119 (2016).
  87. F. Demirci and C. Ozyurek, Astronomy teaching self-efficacy belief scale: The validity and reliability study, J. Educ. Learning 7, 258 (2017).
  88. J. M. Bailey, D. Lombardi, J. R. Cordova, and G. M. Sinatra, Meeting students halfway: Increasing self-efficacy and promoting knowledge change in astronomy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020140 (2017).
  89. J. S. Krim, L. E. Coté, R. S. Schwartz, E. M. Stone, J. J. Cleeves, K. J. Barry, W. Burgess, S. R. Buxner, J. M. Gerton, L. Horvath, J. M. Keller, S. C. Lee, S. M. Locke, and B. M. Rebar, Models and impacts of science research experiences: A review of the literature of CUREs, UREs, and TREs, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, ar65 (2019).
  90. L. M. Rebull, T. Roberts, W. Laurence, M. T. Fitzgerald, D. A. French, V. Gorjian, and G. K. Squires, Motivations of educators for participating in an authentic astronomy research experience professional development program, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010148 (2018).
  91. M. M. Wooten, K. Coble, A. W. Puckett, and T. Rector, Investigating introductory astronomy students’ perceived impacts from participation in course-based undergraduate research experiences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010151 (2018).
  92. L. A. Corwin, M. J. Graham, and E. L. Dolan, Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: An agenda for future research and evaluation, CBE—Life Sciences Education 14, 1 (2015).
  93. L. M. Rebull, M. T. Fitzgerald, T. Roberts, D. A. French, W. Laurence, V. Gorjian, and G. K. Squires, The NASA/IPAC Teacher Archive Research Program (NITARP), in Proceedings of the RTSRE Conference, San Diego, CA (2018).
  94. L. M. Rebull, D. A. French, W. Laurence, T. Roberts, M. T. Fitzgerald, V. Gorjian, and G. K. Squires, Major outcomes of an authentic astronomy research experience professional development program: An analysis of 8 years of data from a teacher research program, in Proceedings of the RTSRE Conference, San Diego, CA (2018).
  95. E. Gomez and M. T. Fitzgerald, Robotic telescopes in education, Astronomical Rev. 13, 28 (2017).
  96. M. T. Fitzgerald, R. Hollow, L. M. Rebull, L. Danaia, and D. H. McKinnon, A review of high school level astronomy student research projects over the last two decades, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aust. 31, E037 (2014).
  97. R. Freed, M. Fitzgerald, R. Genet, and B. Davidson, An overview of ten years of student research and JDSO publications, in Proceedings of the Society for Astronomical Sciences 36th Annual Symposium on Telescope Science Proceedings (2017) pp 131–136.
  98. R. Genet et al., Student scientific research within communities-of-practice, in Proceedings of the Society for Astronomical Sciences 36th Annual Symposium on Telescope Science (2017), pp 143–149.
  99. M. Fitzgerald, D. H. McKinnon, and L. Danaia, Inquiry-based educational design for large-scale high school astronomy projects using real telescopes, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 24, 747 (2015).
  100. M. Fitzgerald, D. H. McKinnon, L. Danaia, and J. Deehan, A large-scale inquiry-based astronomy intervention project: impact on students’ content knowledge performance and views of their high school science classroom, Res. Sci. Educ. 46, 901 (2016).
  101. M. Zeilik, C. Schau, N. Mattern, S. Hall, K. W. Teague, and W. Bisard, Conceptual astronomy: A novel model for teaching postsecondary science courses, Am. J. Phys. 65, 987 (1997).
  102. A. Kareva, S. Miller, A. Foster, and C. R. James, A Comparison of Astronomy/Science Attitudes Among Students and Secondary Teachers (American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting, 2014).
  103. S. J. Slater, T. F. Slater, and A. Shaner, Impact of backwards faded scaffolding in an astronomy course for pre-service elementary teachers based on inquiry, J. Geosci. Educ. 56, 408 (2008).
  104. E. Gomez, Las Cumbres Observatory: Networking People and Telescopes for Science and Education, RTSRE Proc., 1 (2018).
  105. R. Freed, Astronomy Research Seminar Expansion and Building a Community-of-Practice, RTSRE Conference Proceedings, Hilo, HI, 2 (2019).
  106. S. Salimpour, S. Bartlett, M. T. Fitzgerald, D. H. McKinnon, K. R. Cutts, C. R. James, S. Miller, L. Danaia, R. P. Hollow, S. Cabezon, M. Faye, A. Tomita, C. Max, M. de Korte, C. Baudouin, D. Birkenbauma, M. Kallery, S. Anjos, Q. Wu, and A. Ortiz-Gil, The gateway science: A review of astronomy in the OECD school curricula, including China and South Africa, Res. Sci. Educ. 51, 975 (2020).
  107. B. Partridge and G. Greenstein, Goals for ‘Astro 101’: Report on workshops for department leaders, Astron. Educ. Rev. 2, 46 (2003).
  108. H. Fencl and K. Scheel, Engaging students: An examination of the effects of teaching strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a nonmajors physics course, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 35, 20 (2005).
  109. R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and K. C. Larkin, Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options, J. Counsel. Psychol. 33, 265 (1986).
  110. S. L. Britner and F. Pajares, Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 485 (2006).
  111. I. M. Riggs and L. G. Enochs, Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument, Sci. Educ. 74, 625 (1990).
  112. R. E. Bleicher, Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers, School Sci. Math. 104, 383 (2004).
  113. R. Freed, The Astronomy Research Seminar: The wide-ranging impact on student education and careers, preliminary results, in Proceedings of the Society for Astronomical Sciences 37th Annual Symposium on Telescope Science (2018), pp. 161–173.
  114. T. F. Slater, To telescope or not to telescope?, RTSRE Conference Proceedings, San Diego, CA, 1 (2018).
  115. R. Freed, Evaluation of the Astronomy Research Seminar, RTSRE Conference Proceedings, Hilo, HI, 2 (2019).
  116. J. L. Arbuckle, IBM SPSS Amos 26 User’s Guide, Computer software and manual (IBM, New York, NY, 2019).
  117. R. B. Cattell, The scree test for the number of factors, Multivariate Behav. Res. 1, 245 (1966).
  118. L. R. Fabrigar, D. T. Wegener, R. C. MacCallum, and E. J. Strahan, Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research, Psychol. Methods 4, 272 (1999).
  119. H. Taherdoost, S. Sahibuddin, and N. Jalaliyoon, Exploratory factor analysis; concepts and theory, Advances in Applied Mathematics, WSEAS, Gdansk, Poland, 8 (2014).
  120. H. Karami, Exploratory factor analysis as a construct validation tool: (Mis)applications in applied linguistics research, TESOL Journal 6, 476 (2015).
  121. H. Abdi and L. Williams, Newman-Keuls test and Tukey test, Encyclopedia of Research Design (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2010).
  122. R. J. F. M. J. Wilson, Statistical Methods, 3rd ed., edited by Rudolf J. Freund (Academic Press, New York, 1656).
  123. P. Cobb, Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development, Educ. Res. 23, 13 (1994).
  124. J. G. Greeno, J. L. Moore, and D. R. Smith, Transfer of situated learning, in Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition, and Instruction (Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, 1993), pp. 99–167.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010117– Published 28 February, 2022
  • Received 9 August 2021
  • Accepted 12 January 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation