View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Scientific Research Identity Development Need Not Wait Until College: Examining the Motivational Impact of a Pre-College Authentic Research Experience

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Scientific Research Identity Development Need Not Wait Until College: Examining the Motivational Impact of a Pre-College Authentic Research Experience
Language: English
Authors: Deemer, Eric D. (ORCID 0000-0001-9228-6269), Ogas, Joseph P. (ORCID 0000-0002-1332-7729), Barr, Amy C. (ORCID 0000-0001-5489-8934), Bowdon, Richard D., Hall, Mark C. (ORCID 0000-0001-6429-2506), Paula, Stefan (ORCID 0000-0003-4100-1467), Capobianco, Brenda M. (ORCID 0000-0001-5547-0614), Lim, Seoyoung
Source: Research in Science Education. Oct 2022 52(5):1481-1496.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: High School Students, Student Motivation, Scientific Research, STEM Education, Self Concept, Predictor Variables, Authentic Learning, Socialization, Enrichment, Summer Science Programs, Psychological Needs, Personal Autonomy, Self Determination
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-021-09994-6
ISSN: 0157-244X
1573-1898
Abstract: The current study used self-determination theory to examine the efficacy of an established and rigorous STEM enrichment program, the Summer Science Program, in promoting high school students' motivation for, and identification with, scientific research. Results of latent change analyses indicated that students' scientific research identity, intrinsic research motivation, and psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness increased significantly across two timepoints. Results of hierarchical regression analyses also indicated that satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs at a prior time point was positively associated with later intrinsic research motivation These analyses also suggested that intrinsic research motivation was both a distal and proximal predictor of scientific research identity. Overall, our findings suggest that engaging in authentic research as a high school student has the ability to promote motivation and retention in STEM and plays an important role in facilitating the socialization and assimilation of students into the broader scientific community.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1348400
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwESngVK4PHqGi6O8Lrj-yDlAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAOaikWWqSg55eRpwAIBEICBm6-6rR109SS65D9-sqW09lAIxMfFLV6T9azFAPtDEPT4_1CZky6m2thNkRvwYHjGRyYBrSg3d9gHFLDPPwKvQoqdK0wuIFh552Un-6k-1UE4i64SVYTNga0trRXAJwzGgSt1f9LeuEE-DN0U7FqNGrwqBJR6HxRFk541XZ04ABYm0ibDyYT9RKC2CvoL4KnoSMx_-Kqpk67clI6A
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0159103123;g7201oct.22;2022Sep16.05:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0159103123-1">Scientific Research Identity Development Need Not Wait Until College: Examining the Motivational Impact of a Pre-college Authentic Research Experience </title> <p>The current study used self-determination theory to examine the efficacy of an established and rigorous STEM enrichment program, the Summer Science Program, in promoting high school students' motivation for, and identification with, scientific research. Results of latent change analyses indicated that students' scientific research identity, intrinsic research motivation, and psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness increased significantly across two timepoints. Results of hierarchical regression analyses also indicated that satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs at a prior time point was positively associated with later intrinsic research motivation These analyses also suggested that intrinsic research motivation was both a distal and proximal predictor of scientific research identity. Overall, our findings suggest that engaging in authentic research as a high school student has the ability to promote motivation and retention in STEM and plays an important role in facilitating the socialization and assimilation of students into the broader scientific community.</p> <p>Keywords: Authentic research; Community of practice; Scientific research identity; Intrinsic research motivation; Self-determination theory</p> <p>Science educators have long recognized the importance of social contexts as determinants of student learning. Communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]; Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref2">32</reflink>]) provide students with a mechanism to make meaning of their learning by allowing them to focus collaboratively in processes of communication, task performance, and social support. Communities of practice are defined by three characteristics (Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref3">32</reflink>]): (a) mutual engagement (b) joint enterprise, and (c) shared repertoire. Mutual engagement and joint enterprise refer to the recognition that participants are involved in sustained collaborative relationships in which ideas and perspectives are freely exchanged; they are working toward a commonly held goal and taking collective responsibility for the functioning of the group. Shared repertoire refers to the common procedures, jargon, and products (e.g., stories, tools) that participants use to co-create meaning and shape identity. The concept of identity is a central element of this theory, as fundamental and essential as a community of practice. The focus on identity creates a tension between competence and experience. It adds a dimension of dynamism and unpredictability to the production of practice as each member struggles to find a place in the community (Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]). Identity also adds a human dimension to the notion of practice. Gaining a competence entails becoming someone for whom the competence is a meaningful way of living in the world. The history of practice, the significance of what drives the community, the relationships that shape it, and the identities of members all provide resources for learning.</p> <p>This notion of creating a collaborative learning atmosphere is generally reflected in the collection of elements that comprise an authentic research experience (ARE), which scholars generally recognize as effective in fostering learning (Brownell, Kloser, Fukami, & Shavelson, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]; Spell, Guinan, Miller, & Beck, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]) and persistence (Rodenbusch, Hernandez, Simmons, & Dolan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]) in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]) has identified several defining characteristics that capture the essence of an effective ARE for undergraduates. Specifically, effective AREs (a) engage students in research practices and allow them to master specific techniques; (b) generate novel information and emphasize discovery and innovation, (c) emphasize collaboration and teamwork; (d) encourage iterative refinement of research questions, designs, and/or data obtained; and (e) are guided by a mentor.</p> <p>Given that these experiential elements have been shown to be effective in promoting STEM retention among undergraduates (Rodenbusch, Hernandez, Simmons, & Dolan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref9">24</reflink>]), it is possible to design an ARE that would be effective among high school students as well, particularly given the losses that occur in this portion of the STEM pipeline (Sublett & Gottfried, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]; Tyson, Lee, Borman, & Hanson, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref11">31</reflink>]). In the present study, we use self-determination theory to examine the efficacy of a STEM enrichment program that provides high school students with an ARE within the context of a community of practice.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-2">The Summer Science Program</hd> <p>An increasing number of STEM enrichment programs have been implemented over the years with the intention of promoting STEM participation. Established in 1959, the Summer Science Program (SSP) represents one of the oldest and most successful of such programs (https://summerscience.org/). SSP offers a 39-day residential program at four U.S. university campuses in which participants conduct authentic research under the guidance of PhD-level scientists. Participants choose one of two research projects—astrophysics or biochemistry—and work in teams of three to carry out the project from the beginning of the research process (e.g., formulation of hypotheses) to the end (e.g., dissemination of results). The astrophysics project entails taking a series of images of a near-earth asteroid and using those images to predict its future position. The biochemistry project involves modeling an enzyme from a fungal crop pathogen, then designing an inhibitor molecule as the active ingredient of a fungicide. In both projects, topics are taught at a high level and fast pace. Participants maintain a lab notebook and document their findings in a final report. They are encouraged to collaborate throughout. A primary goal of SSP's design is to cultivate a community of practice wherein students and faculty ideas, techniques, and discoveries in an interpersonally supportive fashion. This spirit of cooperation and collaboration is encouraged by an absence of exams, grades, or formal credit. Because each student team takes and analyzes original data on its own (asteroid or fungus) target, the experience simulates professional research more faithfully than lab coursework.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-3">Self-determination Theory</hd> <p>Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref12">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]) proposes that people possess inherent tendencies to strive for optimal growth and development and that these strivings are regulated by forms of motivation that range on a continuum from adaptive to maladaptive. This continuum covers three motivation types—intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation represents the most adaptive form of motivation because it entails performing an activity for the satisfaction it affords rather than some external reward (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref14">25</reflink>]). Cognitive evaluation theory (CET; Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]), which is a subtheory within SDT, posits that intrinsic motivation develops only to the extent that basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met. Importantly, environmental conditions can either promote or thwart satisfaction of these needs, resulting in behavior that is either autonomously regulated or externally controlled. Environments that are perceived as autonomy-supportive are theorized to foster intrinsic motivation, whereas environments that are perceived as controlling give rise to either amotivation or maladaptive forms of extrinsic motivation, depending on the perceived degree of coerciveness in the environment. In the current study, we limit our focus to the CET portion of the SDT framework by exploring the antecedent role of psychological need satisfaction in promoting intrinsic motivation for scientific research.</p> <p>The SDT framework has been applied extensively in educational settings with the aim of understanding the dynamic person-environment processes that affect student motivation. SDT has proved to be particularly fruitful in explaining learning and motivation in the science domain. Lavigne, Vallerand, & Miquelon ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]) demonstrated that teacher provision of autonomy support was associated with greater perceptions of autonomy and competence among high school science students, which in turn predicted increased self-determined motivation and intentions to pursue a career in science. Perceptions of relatedness are also critical to science learning as research has shown that satisfaction of this need is more strongly associated with particular stages of scientific inquiry engagement than both autonomy and competence (Scrogin & Steussy, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref17">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Scientific research represents an ideal context in which to develop intrinsic motivation because it affords people the opportunity to satisfy innate curiosities by allowing them to freely explore and master their environments (White, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]) in contexts of collaboration with other like-minded colleagues. Thus, it seems important that programs involving authentic research for high school students should be designed such that they promote autonomous regulation through engagement in free and open scientific inquiry. Given its emphasis on mastery, interpersonal engagement, and autonomous functioning, SDT represents an ideal framework from which to examine the influence of AREs on motivation for scientific research. To our knowledge, however, no studies have been conducted in this area. SSP represents an established reproducible context in which to address this gap.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-4">Research Identity</hd> <p>Perhaps the chief developmental goal during adolescence is that of forming and integrating one's personal and social identities. Theorists (La Guardia, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, 2003) have suggested that developmental task engagement is instrumental to the satisfaction of SDT needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness; therefore, such tasks serve as motivational bases for the development of identity. Relatedness need satisfaction is arguably most central to identity development because activities that shape interests and skills are often performed among those with whom we share like attitudes and characteristics (Ryan & Deci, 2003). Members of a given social group should experience greater perceptions of belonging and identification with other ingroup members to the extent that there is uniformity of belief about the meaning and values of the group (Hogg & Abrams, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref20">12</reflink>]; Turner, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]). Ingroup members are not only bound together by common beliefs and values but they are also likely to share affective bonds that strengthen their relationships. These cognitive and affective connections serve to satisfy a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]) and further shape relational identity development.</p> <p>A substantial body of literature on identity and its various subtypes has accumulated over the years. Science identity specifically has been linked to increased science persistence (e.g., Merolla & Serpe, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]) and adaptive integration into the scientific community (e.g., Estrada et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]). However, even within the science domain, there are more specific identity types (Carlone & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]) that can be differentiated with respect to their role in predicting STEM persistence. We propose that identification with research represents a subtype of science identity that reflects specific research attitudes and behaviors that lend themselves to incorporation into the psychological self-system. Science pedagogy that is characterized by passive learning activities and cookbook lab procedures may certainly foster general science identity development, but actually engaging in authentic research should give rise to beliefs and competencies that occupy a unique space in a student's global self-concept. Thus, research identity should follow more directly from AREs because these experiences are intended not just to educate students as to what novel and meaningful science are, they should require students to do this type of science as well (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-5">Current Study</hd> <p>Numerous tests of SDT have focused on the motivational underpinnings of behavior within science-specific contexts (e.g., Black & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]; Scogin & Stuessy, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref28">26</reflink>]; Skinner, Saxton, Currie, & Shusterman, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref29">27</reflink>]). However, there remains a paucity of the empirical literature on what motivates students to conduct scientific research. In the present study, we examined how certain pedagogical, contextual, and motivational features of the SSP design may be implicated in the development of adaptive research-related outcomes for high school students. We reasoned that participation in SSP should foster satisfaction of students' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and fulfillment of these needs should in turn be associated with increased intrinsic research motivation and identification with scientific research. We were primarily interested in understanding (a) the extent to which these constructs evidence growth over time as a function of SSP participation and (b) whether SDT need satisfaction serves as a temporal antecedent of intrinsic motivation and research identity. Our hypotheses covered four general areas:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> All SDT constructs (i.e., autonomy, competence, relatedness, and intrinsic motivation) and research identity will evidence significant growth across two time points in the program.</item> <p></p> <item> All SDT need satisfaction constructs will be significant positive predictors of intrinsic research motivation at both concurrent and distal time points.</item> <p></p> <item> Intrinsic research motivation will be a significant positive predictor of scientific research identity at both concurrent and distal time points.</item> <p></p> <item> Relatedness need satisfaction will be a significant positive predictor of scientific research identity at both concurrent and distal time points.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0159103123-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159103123-7">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 205 rising high school seniors participated in the study. Participants were drawn from a pool of applicants based on a holistic approach designed to maximize diversity and impact. The sample comprised 102 girls, 101 boys, and two of undisclosed gender. The mean age was 16.68 (SD =.59; range = 15 to 18). The majority identified as East Asian (<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref30">72</reflink>), followed by White (<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref31">54</reflink>), multiracial (<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref32">19</reflink>), Indian (<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>), Latino/a (<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>), Black/African American (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>), Southeast Asian (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>), Arabic/Middle Eastern (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>), and Pacific Islander (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>). Nine participants preferred not to indicate their race/ethnicity and seven did not respond to this item. The majority were U.S. citizens (<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref39">162</reflink>), 41 were not, and 2 did not disclose citizenship.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-8">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159103123-9">Identification as a Researcher</hd> <p>The 6-item Scientific Identity Scale (SIS; Chemers, Zurbriggen, Syed, Goza, & Bearman, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]) was used to measure the degree to which participants reported identifying as a researcher. Participants were asked to respond to the items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Items were adapted for the current study by replacing the term "scientist" with the term "researcher." Thus, for example, the original item "Being a <emph>scientist</emph> is an important reflection of who I am" was modified to state "Being a <emph>researcher</emph> is an important reflection of who I am." Chemers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>]) obtained Cronbach's alpha coefficient of.89, thus supporting the measure's reliability. In the present study, Cronbach's alphas were.85 and.90 at time 2 (T2) and time 3 (T3), respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-10">Intrinsic Motivation for Research</hd> <p>The 9-item intrinsic reward (IR) subscale of the Research Motivation Scale (Deemer, Martens, & Buboltz, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]) was used to assess participants' self-determined reasons for conducting scientific research. Items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). An example item included "I enjoy doing research for its own sake." Past research supports the reliability of IR scores (<emph>α</emph> =.90; Deemer et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref43">10</reflink>]). IR scores in the present study demonstrated good reliability at both T2 (<emph>α</emph> =.87) and T3 (<emph>α</emph> =.91).</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-11">Psychological Need Satisfaction</hd> <p>We used the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Deci et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref44">9</reflink>]) to assess the extent to which the program satisfied participants' basic psychological needs. This entailed a 21-item scale consisting of three subscales that measured satisfaction of needs for autonomy (7 items), competence (6 items), and relatedness (8 items) in the workplace. Participants rated the items on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>not at all true</emph>) to 7 (<emph>very true</emph>). For the purpose of this study, items were adapted by replacing references to work with references to SSP. For example, the original autonomy item "I feel like I can pretty much be myself <emph>at work</emph>" was adapted to state "I feel like I can pretty much be myself <emph>in this program</emph>." Deci et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]) obtained Cronbach's alpha coefficients of.79,.73, and.79 for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively, thus supporting the measures' reliability. Alpha coefficients in the present study were.65 (T2) and.66 (T3) for autonomy,.66 (T2) and.63 (T3) for competence, and.84 (T2) and.85 (T3) for relatedness.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-12">Control Variables</hd> <p>It is possible that motivation and identity vary across demographic factors; therefore, we controlled for these variables in the hierarchical regression analyses. Both gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and citizenship status (0 = international, 1 = U.S.) were measured as dummy-coded variables. Parental occupation was also measured as a dummy-coded variable (0 = non-STEM, 1 = STEM), wherein STEM occupations were operationally defined as those occupations in which STEM skills are used in applied (e.g., engineer) or educational (e.g., high school science teacher) settings. All other occupations (e.g., law, business) were designated as non-STEM. Parental education was measured on a 5-point ordered categorical scale ranging from 0 (<emph>no high school</emph>) to 4 (<emph>PhD/MD/JD</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-13">Procedure</hd> <p>University institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to beginning the study. Participants' parents were asked to read and sign informed consent forms and participants were also asked to provide their written assent. Both forms described procedures designed to protect the confidentiality of participants' data and documented their right to withdraw from the study at any time. All data were collected using an online survey, with the first survey comprising the control variables and the second and third surveys containing questionnaires for the substantive variables. The survey was administered three times over the course of the program. The first wave of data collection occurred 1 week prior to the start of the program and the second (T2) and third (T3) surveys were administered after the third and fifth weeks, respectively. We chose to wait 3 weeks to administer the second survey to allow participants time to experience the need-satisfying properties of the program and form motivational attitudes toward scientific research.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-14">Data Analytic Strategy</hd> <p>We used latent change modeling (LCM; McArdle, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref46">19</reflink>]) to test the hypotheses that the motivation and identity variables would exhibit significant growth over the course of the intervention. LCM is an extension of the longitudinal confirmatory factor analytic model wherein a mean T2 latent variable is a function of a mean T1 latent variable plus a latent variable which captures change from T1 to T2. Because using single total scores for research identity and intrinsic motivation as indicators of the latent variables would render the model statistically underidentified, we computed two parcel scores for each variable such that items 1–3 for research identity represented parcel 1 and items 4–6 represented parcel 2. For intrinsic motivation, items 1–5 were summed to create parcel 1, and items 6–9 were summed to create parcel 2. The parcels were used as indicator variables defining the latent T1 and T2 variables.</p> <p>The first indicator of each latent variable was fixed to 1 and the second indicators were specified to load on an indicator-specific factor to account for the possibility that they may correlate more highly with each other over time than with the first time-specific indicator. The path coefficients for the regression of the T3 factor on the T2 and T3–T2 factors were also fixed to 1. The variances of the T2 and T3–T2 factors were freely estimated. A diagram of the general model is presented in Fig. 1. Indexes used to assess the fit of the models to the data were as follows: (a) comparative fit index (CFI); (b) Tucker-Lewis index (TLI); (c) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA); and (d) standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). CFI and TLI values range from 0 to 1, with values >.90 indicating acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]). Values of.08 or less for RMSEA and SRMR are considered acceptable (Browne & Cudeck, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]; Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref49">13</reflink>]). The latent change analyses were performed using maximum likelihood estimation in the Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]) statistical software package.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Diagram of the latent change model tested in the current study</p> <p>We also performed hierarchical regression analyses using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; IBM Corporation, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref51">14</reflink>]) to assess the relations among the psychological needs, intrinsic motivation, and research identity variables. In the analysis predicting intrinsic motivation, the demographic control variables were entered as a block on step 1, the T2 need satisfaction variables were entered on step 2, and the T3 need satisfaction variables were entered on step 3. The procedure and predictors were the same for the regression model predicting research identity, with the exception that the T2 and T3 intrinsic motivation variables were entered as additional predictors on steps 2 and 3, respectively, of the analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-15">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159103123-16">Preliminary Analyses</hd> <p>The data were screened for missing values prior to performing the substantive analyses. The analyses were performed on an <emph>N</emph> of 200. Of these participants, 181 provided complete data on all measures and missing data on any given measure did not exceed 5.5%. Missing values were therefore assumed to be missing at random and these data were dealt with using the maximum likelihood estimator. Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the model variables are presented in Table 1. Mean T2 and T3 scores for the psychological need and motivation/identity variables are presented in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively.</p> <p>Table 1 Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for the demographic, motivation, and identity variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Variable</p></th><th><p>1</p></th><th><p>2</p></th><th><p>3</p></th><th><p>4</p></th><th><p>5</p></th><th><p>6</p></th><th><p>7</p></th><th><p>8</p></th><th><p>9</p></th><th><p>10</p></th><th><p>11</p></th><th><p>12</p></th><th><p>13</p></th><th><p>14</p></th><th><p>15</p></th><th><p>16</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>1. Gender</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>2. Citizenship</p></td><td><p>−.01</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>3. ME</p></td><td><p>−.01</p></td><td><p>.04</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>4. FE</p></td><td><p>−.001</p></td><td><p>.08</p></td><td><p>.64***</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>5. MO</p></td><td><p>.05</p></td><td><p>.15*</p></td><td><p>.30***</p></td><td><p>.16*</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>6. FO</p></td><td><p>.05</p></td><td><p>.13†</p></td><td><p>.27</p></td><td><p>.39***</p></td><td><p>.15*</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>7. T2 autonomy</p></td><td><p>−.07</p></td><td><p>−.21**</p></td><td><p>−.01</p></td><td><p>.02</p></td><td><p>−.07</p></td><td><p>−.04</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>8. T3 autonomy</p></td><td><p>.02</p></td><td><p>−.14†</p></td><td><p>−.02</p></td><td><p>−.05</p></td><td><p>.03</p></td><td><p>−.06</p></td><td><p>.72***</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>9. T2 competence</p></td><td><p>−.13</p></td><td><p>−.21**</p></td><td><p>.10</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>−.03</p></td><td><p>−.04</p></td><td><p>.63***</p></td><td><p>.54***</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>10. T3 competence</p></td><td><p>−.17*</p></td><td><p>−.18*</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.01</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>−.05</p></td><td><p>.53***</p></td><td><p>.56***</p></td><td><p>.72***</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>11. T2 relatedness</p></td><td><p>−.03</p></td><td><p>−.13†</p></td><td><p>.01</p></td><td><p>.003</p></td><td><p>−.04</p></td><td><p>−.10</p></td><td><p>.53***</p></td><td><p>.43***</p></td><td><p>.46***</p></td><td><p>.42***</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>12. T3 relatedness</p></td><td><p>.05</p></td><td><p>−.14†</p></td><td><p>.002</p></td><td><p>−.03</p></td><td><p>.06</p></td><td><p>−.06</p></td><td><p>.43***</p></td><td><p>.56***</p></td><td><p>.51***</p></td><td><p>.56***</p></td><td><p>.77***</p></td><td><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>13. T2 IRM</p></td><td><p>−.10</p></td><td><p>−.23***</p></td><td><p>−.06</p></td><td><p>−.12</p></td><td><p>−.10</p></td><td><p>−.10</p></td><td><p>.43***</p></td><td><p>.41***</p></td><td><p>.51***</p></td><td><p>.46***</p></td><td><p>.31***</p></td><td><p>.32***</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>14. T3 IRM</p></td><td><p>.03</p></td><td><p>−.21**</p></td><td><p>−.02</p></td><td><p>−.11</p></td><td><p>.003</p></td><td><p>−.08</p></td><td><p>.42***</p></td><td><p>.52***</p></td><td><p>.47***</p></td><td><p>.52***</p></td><td><p>.25***</p></td><td><p>.32***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.78***</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>15. T2 SRI</p></td><td><p>−.07</p></td><td><p>−.23***</p></td><td><p>−.02</p></td><td><p>−.10</p></td><td><p>−.03</p></td><td><p>−.10</p></td><td><p>.41***</p></td><td><p>.38***</p></td><td><p>.40***</p></td><td><p>.39***</p></td><td><p>.29***</p></td><td><p>.25***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.69***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.64***</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p>16. T3 SRI</p></td><td><p>−.02</p></td><td><p>−.13†</p></td><td><p>−.01</p></td><td><p>−.08</p></td><td><p>.03</p></td><td><p>−.07</p></td><td><p>.38***</p></td><td><p>.47***</p></td><td><p>.39***</p></td><td><p>.48***</p></td><td><p>.25***</p></td><td><p>.35***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.60***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.76***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.76***</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>17. <italic>M</italic></p></td><td><p>.50</p></td><td><p>.80</p></td><td><p>2.36</p></td><td><p>2.57</p></td><td><p>.95</p></td><td><p>1.27</p></td><td><p>4.85</p></td><td><p>5.05</p></td><td><p>5.25</p></td><td><p>5.56</p></td><td><p>6.09</p></td><td><p>6.23</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.16</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.05</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>18. <italic>SD</italic></p></td><td><p>.50</p></td><td><p>.40</p></td><td><p>1.02</p></td><td><p>1.15</p></td><td><p>.73</p></td><td><p>.63</p></td><td><p>.76</p></td><td><p>.79</p></td><td><p>.85</p></td><td><p>.78</p></td><td><p>.72</p></td><td><p>.71</p></td><td align="left"><p>.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>.64</p></td><td align="left"><p>.69</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. <emph>ME</emph>, mother's education; <emph>FE</emph>, father's education; <emph>MO</emph>, mother's occupation; <emph>FO</emph>, father's occupation; <emph>IM</emph>, intrinsic research motivation; <emph>RI</emph>, scientific research identity †<emph>p</emph> <.07 *<emph>p</emph> <.05 **<emph>p</emph> <.01 ***<emph>p</emph> <.001</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Mean scores and standard deviations for the psychological need variables</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Mean scores and standard deviations for the research-related variables</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-17">Latent Change Analyses</hd> <p>A summary of the model fit statistics for the latent difference analyses is presented in Table 2. The models for change in perceived competence and intrinsic motivation provided an excellent fit to the data as the fit index values for these models were within recommended limits. Mean difference scores were.94 (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and.74 (<emph>p</emph> <.001) for competence and intrinsic motivation, respectively, thus indicating significant growth in these variables. The autonomy and research identity models fit the data less optimally than the previous models as the RMSEA values either met or slightly exceeded the recommended cutoff of.08. Despite this, results yielded significant mean difference scores of.83 (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and.82 (<emph>p</emph> <.001) for autonomy and research identity, respectively. Finally, the relatedness model provided a marginally acceptable fit to the data as the RMSEA and SRMR values were slightly elevated; however, the mean difference score was statistically significant (estimate =.64, <emph>p</emph> <.001).</p> <p>Table 2 Summary of latent change model fit statistics and mean difference scores</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Model</p></th><th><p><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th><th><p><italic>df</italic></p></th><th><p>CFI</p></th><th><p>TLI</p></th><th><p>RMSEA</p></th><th><p>90% CI for RMSEA</p></th><th><p>SRMR</p></th><th><p><italic>M</italic><sub>T3–T2</sub></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Autonomy</p></td><td><p>5.17</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>.99</p></td><td><p>.97</p></td><td><p>.09</p></td><td><p>(.00,.19)</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.83</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Competence</p></td><td><p>1.96</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>1.00</p></td><td><p>1.00</p></td><td><p>.00</p></td><td><p>(.00,.14)</p></td><td><p>.03</p></td><td><p>.94</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Relatedness</p></td><td><p>6.61</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>.99</p></td><td><p>.97</p></td><td><p>.11</p></td><td><p>(.02,.20)</p></td><td><p>.10</p></td><td><p>.64</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Intrinsic research motivation</p></td><td><p>2.75</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>.99</p></td><td><p>.99</p></td><td><p>.04</p></td><td><p>(.00,.15)</p></td><td><p>.03</p></td><td><p>.74</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Research identity</p></td><td><p>5.23</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>.99</p></td><td><p>.99</p></td><td><p>.09</p></td><td><p>(.00,.19)</p></td><td><p>.04</p></td><td><p>.82</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. <emph>T</emph>, time</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-18">Hierarchical Regression Analysis</hd> <p>Results for the hierarchical regression analysis predicting T3 intrinsic motivation are presented in Table 3. The collection of predictors entered on step 1 of the analysis did not account for significant variation (5.8%) in intrinsic motivation, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref52">6</reflink>, 160) = 1.65, <emph>p</emph> =.138. Despite this, citizenship (<emph>β</emph> = −.19, <emph>p</emph> =.017) was significantly associated with intrinsic motivation for research, as international students scored significantly higher (<emph>M</emph> = 4.56, SD =.48) on this outcome than U.S. students (<emph>M</emph> = 4.24, SD =.60). The step 2 model accounted for significant increment in variance explained (22.2%), Δ <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>, 157) = 16.12, <emph>p</emph> <.001, as T2 autonomy (<emph>β</emph> =.21, <emph>p</emph> =.027) and T2 competence (<emph>β</emph> =.35, <emph>p</emph> <.001) were significant positive predictors of intrinsic motivation. Adding the T3 predictors to the regression equation on step 3 increased the variance explained by 11.8%, Δ <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>, 154) = 10.11, <emph>p</emph> <.001, as autonomy (<emph>β</emph> =.37, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and competence (<emph>β</emph> =.35, <emph>p</emph> <.001) were significantly associated with intrinsic motivation but relatedness (<emph>β</emph> = −.18, <emph>p</emph> =.135) was not. Taken together, the predictors in the full regression model accounted for 39.8% of the variance in intrinsic research motivation.</p> <p>Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression analysis predicting T3 intrinsic motivation for research</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Predictor</p></th><th><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th><p>SE</p></th><th><p><italic>β</italic></p></th><th><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th><p>Δ <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th><th><p><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Step 1</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td><p>--</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.058</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Gender</p></td><td><p>.28</p></td><td><p>.84</p></td><td><p>.03</p></td><td><p>.528</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Citizenship</p></td><td><p>− 2.68</p></td><td><p>1.11</p></td><td><p>−.19</p></td><td><p>.017</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Mother's education</p></td><td><p>.59</p></td><td><p>.55</p></td><td><p>.11</p></td><td><p>.288</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Father's education</p></td><td><p>−.65</p></td><td><p>.50</p></td><td><p>−.14</p></td><td><p>.192</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Mother's occupation</p></td><td><p>.15</p></td><td><p>.61</p></td><td><p>.02</p></td><td><p>.804</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Father's occupation</p></td><td><p>−.54</p></td><td><p>.79</p></td><td><p>−.06</p></td><td><p>.496</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>Step 2</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td><p>.222</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.280</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> T2 autonomy</p></td><td><p>.21</p></td><td><p>.09</p></td><td><p>.21</p></td><td><p>.027</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T2 competence</p></td><td><p>.37</p></td><td><p>.10</p></td><td><p>.35</p></td><td><p><.001</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T2 relatedness</p></td><td><p>−.03</p></td><td><p>.08</p></td><td><p>−.03</p></td><td><p>.695</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>Step 3</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td><p>.118</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.398</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> T3 autonomy</p></td><td><p>.35</p></td><td><p>.10</p></td><td><p>.37</p></td><td><p><.001</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T3 competence</p></td><td><p>.39</p></td><td><p>.11</p></td><td><p>.35</p></td><td><p><.001</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T3 relatedness</p></td><td><p>−.17</p></td><td><p>.11</p></td><td><p>−.18</p></td><td><p>.135</p></td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Results of the hierarchical regression analysis predicting T3 research identity are presented in Table 4. The step 1 model consisting of the demographic control variables was nonsignificant, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>, 158) =.69, <emph>p</emph> =.658, as the model explained 2.3% of the variance in research identity. The entry of the T2 predictors on step 2 resulted in a unique 36.2% of the variance explained, Δ <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>, 154) = 22.76, <emph>p</emph> <.001. The need satisfaction variables were unrelated to T3 research identity but intrinsic research motivation was a robust positive predictor of this outcome (<emph>β</emph> =.54, <emph>p</emph> <.001). The addition of the T3 predictors on step 3 resulted in a significant increment of 21.4% of the variance explained, Δ <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>, 150) = 20.10, <emph>p</emph> <.001, as intrinsic research motivation was a significant positive predictor of research identity (<emph>β</emph> =.66, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Although the need satisfaction variables were once again shown to be null predictors, the relationship between competence and T3 research identity approached the significance threshold (<emph>β</emph> =.15, <emph>p</emph> =.079).</p> <p>Table 4 Results of hierarchical regression analysis predicting T3 research identity</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Predictor</p></th><th><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th><p>SE</p></th><th><p><italic>β</italic></p></th><th><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th><p>Δ <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th><th><p><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Step 1</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td><p>--</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.026</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Gender</p></td><td><p>−.24</p></td><td><p>.64</p></td><td><p>−.03</p></td><td><p>.707</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Citizenship</p></td><td><p>− 1.07</p></td><td><p>.85</p></td><td><p>−.10</p></td><td><p>.211</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Mother's education</p></td><td><p>.29</p></td><td><p>.43</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.504</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Father's education</p></td><td><p>−.34</p></td><td><p>.39</p></td><td><p>−.10</p></td><td><p>.375</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Mother's occupation</p></td><td><p>.18</p></td><td><p>.47</p></td><td><p>.03</p></td><td><p>.705</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Father's occupation</p></td><td><p>−.49</p></td><td><p>.61</p></td><td><p>−.07</p></td><td><p>.423</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>Step 2</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td><p>.362</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.388</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> T2 autonomy</p></td><td><p>.06</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.08</p></td><td><p>.349</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T2 competence</p></td><td><p>.06</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.08</p></td><td><p>.366</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T2 relatedness</p></td><td><p>.01</p></td><td><p>.05</p></td><td><p>.01</p></td><td><p>.933</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T2 intrinsic motivation</p></td><td><p>.48</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.54</p></td><td><p><.001</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>Step 3</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td><p>.214</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.564</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> T3 autonomy</p></td><td><p>.01</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.02</p></td><td><p>.843</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T3 competence</p></td><td><p>.13</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.15</p></td><td><p>.079</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T3 relatedness</p></td><td><p>.10</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.14</p></td><td><p>.150</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> T3 intrinsic motivation</p></td><td><p>.52</p></td><td><p>.07</p></td><td><p>.66</p></td><td><p><.001</p></td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0159103123-19">Discussion</hd> <p>Our findings largely supported our hypotheses and demonstrate that an appropriately designed ARE can positively impact self-identification as a researcher in high school students. Importantly, our findings also underscore the importance of SDT as a framework for explaining the development of research-related motivation and identity.</p> <p>Supporting our first hypothesis, scores for the motivation and identity variables increased significantly from T2 to T3. The largest increase in growth was observed for competence, followed by autonomy and research identity. Students clearly perceived a robust increase in their ability to master program research tasks as well as an increased sense of personal control over the ways in which they conducted their scientific research. Both results point to the ability of the program instructors to implement effective research training, and trust students to design an appropriate research study, generate hypotheses, and use proper techniques to analyze and interpret their data. Although the students had developmentally appropriate knowledge of STEM topics upon entering the program, they successfully engaged in complex research tasks that clearly challenged them to develop and refine their skills. Perceptions of relatedness also increased significantly over time but growth in this variable was somewhat weaker than its need counterparts. This observation is likely due to a ceiling effect, as students' mean scores on relatedness at T2 approached the upper end of the measurement scale. Students perceived a high degree of affiliation with other students and instructors early in the program and this affiliation remained strong throughout the program, whereas satisfaction of needs for autonomy and competence grew more substantially throughout the program. This pattern thus appears to be a direct reflection of Lave and Wenger's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>]) notion of legitimate peripheral participation, which is theorized to be central to identity development in communities of practice. That is, in the context provided by SSP, participants may have immediately acknowledged and legitimated their peers' scientific skills, thereby facilitating the mutual exchange of knowledge, ways of understanding, and modes of conduct that engender a sense of community and connectedness.</p> <p>In line with SDT expectations, autonomy and competence were significant positive predictors of intrinsic motivation for research. Thus, students reported increased self-determined motivation to conduct research at both T2 and T3 to the extent that the program facilitated their agency and research skill development. However, our second hypothesis was only partially supported, as relatedness was found to be unrelated to intrinsic motivation at both measurement occasions. As stated above, however, it is important to note that scores on the relatedness items may have been subject to a ceiling effect as participants reported high perceptions of relatedness early on and they remained high throughout the program. Having "saturated" the scale early on, scores on these questions thus cannot be strongly correlated with a rise in intrinsic motivation over time. These data are instead consistent with a rapid establishment of a robust community facilitating the relatedness that underlies the successful development of shared identity in a social group (Ryan & Deci, 2003). Our findings are thus consistent with previous research indicating that establishing a sense of relatedness is perhaps the most critical factor in motivating students to engage in scientific inquiry (Scogin & Steussy, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]). Establishing open lines of communication and some degree of social comfort at the outset of a collaborative learning activity appears to be integral to forming the shared beliefs, repertoires, and objectives that are foundational to developing a community of practice.</p> <p>The current results yielded support for our third hypothesis as intrinsic motivation for research at both T2 and T3 was a significant positive predictor of T3 research identity after controlling for the influence of demographic factors and psychological need satisfaction. The strong contemporaneous and distal associations observed between these variables represent compelling evidence that the inherent satisfaction and challenge of conducting research, even as a high school student, is likely to be assimilated into the self as a distinct identity over time. Ryan and Deci (2003) noted that the transformation of individual motivation into identity requires contextual supports that foster this assimilation process. It appears that SSP instantiated these supportive environmental conditions as the participants endorsed high perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness throughout the program. High mean scores on these measures indicate that SSP afforded the high school participants a socially facilitative environment that allowed them to exercise their agency and develop their research skills.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-20">Limitations</hd> <p>Certain limitations in the current study warrant mentioning. First, the collection of data on the substantive variables at only two measurement occasions limited our ability to evaluate growth trajectories across the duration of the program. For example, the lack of correlation between relatedness measures and intrinsic motivation should be revisited to include survey data collected pre-program; if our "saturation of scale" interpretation is correct, we should see relatedness need satisfaction increase sharply between pre-program and early-program responses, then remain more or less constant over the remainder of the program. Second, the current study did not employ a control group, thus it is difficult to determine whether changes in motivation and identity can be directly attributed to the SSP intervention. Our adapted version of the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale incorporated attributions of motivation to the program itself; however, no such program attributions were built into the motivation and identity scale. Future research would need to employ an experimental design if more definitive causal inferences about the efficacy of SSP are to be made.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-21">Conclusions and Implications</hd> <p>In this study, we examined the efficacy of a well-established STEM enrichment program designed to support and engage high school students in authentic research experiences and its impact on students' science identity formation. Using self-determination theory, our results indicated that engagement in SSP was associated with growth in all motivation and identity variables over time, and the psychological need satisfaction that the program afforded students was positively related to intrinsic research motivation. These results parallel existing studies on science identity formation among undergraduate students, whereby enrichment programs have demonstrated the capacity to shape and reshape students' scientific research identities (e.g., Merolla & Serpe, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref60">20</reflink>]). Mastering technical skills needed to be a scientist is a salient part of constructing science identities (Carlone & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref62">18</reflink>]; Merolla et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]), and the role of science identity underscores the importance of social interactions that allow students to be recognized—and to recognize themselves—as scientists (Merolla & Serpe, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref64">20</reflink>]). Our research reveals that these same relationships hold true for high school students with an appropriately designed program. Also unique to our results is the finding that intrinsic motivation to conduct research was both a proximal and distal predictor of research identity. This is a relationship that had been heretofore unexamined in SDT research.</p> <p>In sum, the current findings provide preliminary evidence that SSP is effective in satisfying participants' psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and facilitates autonomous motivation and identification with scientific research. The social and motivational benefits of SSP highlight that (a) science itself should be seen not just as a body of knowledge to be developed or drawn upon, but rather as a practice that fosters identification with and assimilation into a community of scholars, and (b) incorporation of this vision of science into the education process can be transformative. The current study is also noteworthy because, to our knowledge, it represents the first of its kind to apply the SDT framework to the study of scientific research motives among high school students. Studying the motivational implications of engaging in authentic research experiences among adolescents will become increasingly important as educators strive to identify interventions and academic programs that improve STEM retention.</p> <hd id="AN0159103123-22">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0159103123-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref22" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Baumeister R, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1995; 117: 497-529. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Black AE, Deci EL. The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education. 2000; 84: 740-756. 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740:AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref48" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Browne MW, Cudeck RBollen KA, Long JS. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models. 1993: Newbury Park, CA; Sage: 136-162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brownell SE, Kloser MJ, Fukami T, Shavelson R. Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based "cookbook" and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching. 2012; 41: 36-45</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref25" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carlone HB, Johnson A. Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2007; 44: 1187-1218. 10.1002/tea.20237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref35" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chemers MM, Zurbriggen EL, Syed M, Goza BK, Bearman S. The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues. 2011; 67: 469-491. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref12" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. 1985: New York; Plenum Press. 10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Deci EL, Ryan RM. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000; 11: 227-268. 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref44" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Deci EL, Ryan RM, Gagné M, Leone DR, Usunov J, Kornazheva BP. Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2001; 27: 930-942. 10.1177/0146167201278002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deemer, E. D, Martens, M. P, & Buboltz, W. C. (2010). Toward a tripartite model of research motivation: Development and initial validation of the Research Motivation Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 18(3), 292–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072710364794.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Estrada M, Woodcock A, Hernandez PR, Schultz PW. Toward a model of social influence that explains minority student integration in the scientific community. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2011; 103: 206-222. 10.1037/a0020743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogg MA, Abrams D. Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. 1988: London; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6: 1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IBM Corporation. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> La Guardia JG. Developing who I am: A self-determination theory approach to the establishment of healthy identities. Educational Psychologist. 2009; 44: 90-104. 10.1080/00461520902832350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. 1991: Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavigne GL, Vallerand RJ, Miquelon P. A motivational model of persistence in science education: A self-determination theory approach. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2007; 22: 351-369. 10.1007/BF03173432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee JT. Which kids can 'become' scientists? Effects of gender, self-concepts, and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1998; 61: 199-219. 10.2307/2787108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McArdle JJ. Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology. 2009; 60: 577-605. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merolla DM, Serpe RT. STEM enrichment programs and graduate school matriculation: The role of science identity salience. Social Psychology of Education. 2013; 16: 575-597. 10.1007/s11218-013-9233-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merolla DM, Serpe RT, Stryker S, Schulz PW. Structural precursors to identity processes: The role of proximate social structures. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2012; 75: 149-172. 10.1177/0190272511436352</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user's guide. 19987: Los Angeles, CA; Muthén & Muthén2016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities. 2017: Washington, DC; The National Academies Press: 10.17226/24622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodenbusch SE, Hernandez PR, Simmons SL, Dolan EL. Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE–Life Sciences Education. 2016; 15: 1-10. 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000; 25: 54-67. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scogin SC, Stuessy CL. Encouraging greater student inquiry engagement in science through motivational support through by online scientist-mentors. Science Education. 2015; 99: 312-349. 10.1002/sce.21145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner E, Saxton E, Currie C, Shusterman G. A motivational account of the undergraduate experience in science: Brief measures of students' self-system appraisals, engagement in coursework, and identity as a scientist. International Journal of Science Education. 2017; 39: 2433-2459. 10.1080/09500693.2017.1387946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spell RM, Guinan JA, Miller KR, Beck CW. Redefining authentic research experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to their implementation. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2014; 13: 102-110. 10.1187/cbe.13-08-0169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sublett C, Gottfried MA. Individual and institutional factors of applied STEM course taking in high school. Teachers College Record. 2017; 119: 1-38. 10.1177/016146811711901005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner JCTajfel H. Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Social identity and intergroup relations. 1982: New York; Cambridge University Press: 15-40</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyson W, Lee R, Borman KM, Hanson MA. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. 2007; 12: 243-270. 10.1080/10824660701601266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. 1998: New York; Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White RW. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review. 1959; 66: 297-333. 10.1037/h0040934</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Eric D. Deemer; Joseph P. Ogas; Amy C. Barr; Richard D. Bowdon; Mark C. Hall; Stefan Paula; Brenda M. Capobianco and Seoyoung Lim</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib162" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref63"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1348400
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Scientific Research Identity Development Need Not Wait Until College: Examining the Motivational Impact of a Pre-College Authentic Research Experience
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deemer%2C+Eric+D%2E%22">Deemer, Eric D.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9228-6269">0000-0001-9228-6269</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ogas%2C+Joseph+P%2E%22">Ogas, Joseph P.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1332-7729">0000-0002-1332-7729</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barr%2C+Amy+C%2E%22">Barr, Amy C.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5489-8934">0000-0001-5489-8934</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bowdon%2C+Richard+D%2E%22">Bowdon, Richard D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hall%2C+Mark+C%2E%22">Hall, Mark C.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6429-2506">0000-0001-6429-2506</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Paula%2C+Stefan%22">Paula, Stefan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4100-1467">0000-0003-4100-1467</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Capobianco%2C+Brenda+M%2E%22">Capobianco, Brenda M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5547-0614">0000-0001-5547-0614</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lim%2C+Seoyoung%22">Lim, Seoyoung</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Research+in+Science+Education%22"><i>Research in Science Education</i></searchLink>. Oct 2022 52(5):1481-1496.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Research%22">Scientific Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept%22">Self Concept</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authentic+Learning%22">Authentic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socialization%22">Socialization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Enrichment%22">Enrichment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Summer+Science+Programs%22">Summer Science Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Needs%22">Psychological Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personal+Autonomy%22">Personal Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Determination%22">Self Determination</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11165-021-09994-6
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0157-244X<br />1573-1898
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The current study used self-determination theory to examine the efficacy of an established and rigorous STEM enrichment program, the Summer Science Program, in promoting high school students' motivation for, and identification with, scientific research. Results of latent change analyses indicated that students' scientific research identity, intrinsic research motivation, and psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness increased significantly across two timepoints. Results of hierarchical regression analyses also indicated that satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs at a prior time point was positively associated with later intrinsic research motivation These analyses also suggested that intrinsic research motivation was both a distal and proximal predictor of scientific research identity. Overall, our findings suggest that engaging in authentic research as a high school student has the ability to promote motivation and retention in STEM and plays an important role in facilitating the socialization and assimilation of students into the broader scientific community.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1348400
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1348400
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11165-021-09994-6
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 1481
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authentic Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socialization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Enrichment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Summer Science Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personal Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Determination
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Scientific Research Identity Development Need Not Wait Until College: Examining the Motivational Impact of a Pre-College Authentic Research Experience
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deemer, Eric D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ogas, Joseph P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barr, Amy C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bowdon, Richard D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hall, Mark C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Paula, Stefan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Capobianco, Brenda M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lim, Seoyoung
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0157-244X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1898
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Research in Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1