Historically Underrepresented Science Undergraduates’ Interpretations of Science Costs and Values Survey Items

• In Event: Is This Worth It? Examining How Students Weigh Competing Motivational Beliefs Through an Expectancy-Value Lens

Abstract

Students from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in STEM (e.g., African American, Latinx, Native/Indigenous) continue to face barriers in earning STEM degrees relative to students from well-represented racial/ethnic groups. Situated expectancy-value theory (SEVT; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) has been used as a framework when investigating STEM persistence, often utilizing surveys to assess students’ task-value beliefs (i.e., values and costs) to examine relations between beliefs and persistence (Perez et al., 2019). However, questions have been raised about the validity of such constructs for minoritized individuals (Matthews & Wigfield, 2024). Cognitive interviewing (Karabenick et al., 2007) can be used to explore the validity of SEVT motivation measures for underrepresented students in STEM. Further, this method can illuminate how students weigh perceived values and costs in determining their overall task value.

For a larger study, undergraduates enrolled in introductory biology and chemistry courses responded to surveys assessing their science perceived values and costs (Conley, 2012; Flake et al., 2015; Perez et al., 2014; Table 1.1). In this study, we conducted one-on-one cognitive interviews in fall 2021 (18 cost items) and spring 2022 (13 value items) with 18 survey respondents who identified with underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in STEM (7 African American/Black, 8 Latinx, 1 Indigenous American, 2 multiracial). Interview questions focused on participants’ interpretations of and reasoning with the values and costs items and whether additional costs or values dimensions should be incorporated into surveys. We used applied thematic analysis (Guest et al., 2012) to analyze transcribed interviews. Two coders developed a codebook then coded all interviews, discussing discrepancies with the research team. Themes were then developed based on the codes.

Results indicated that participants understood most items, although there were exceptions such as uncertainty about the meaning of phrases like “sacrificing valuable relationships” or “emotionally draining.” Importantly, results revealed how students weighed costs and values in determining their ratings for the different items. For example, when responding to an effort cost item, one participant stated, “with what I want to do with my life, I know I need to study science…So I do want to put in a lot of effort. So, considering all of that, I do think it's very worth it.” Another participant replying to an interest value item said, “…it does stress me out at times, but obviously, I'm still in the major. So, I would say that I still do like it and enjoy it,” suggesting interest value mitigates psychological costs. Finally, some participants highlighted potentially missing dimensions, such as mental and physical health costs and social utility value.

The results revealed participants’ thinking when responding to cost and value survey items, and illustrated how they weigh science values and costs to determine the overall value of science. The results further highlight potential changes to enhance the clarity and specificity of items, which may improve the assessment of SEVT beliefs, as well the possibility of incorporating additional value and cost dimensions. Future research should consider developing items related to mental and physical health costs, as well as social utility value.
 

Authors

• Doug Snuffer, Old Dominion University

• Faith Watrous, Old Dominion University

• Melissa R Colangelo, Old Dominion University

• Kendra Yvonne Hall, Old Dominion University

• Vicky Phun, Michigan State University

• Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia, Michigan State University

• Tony Perez, Old Dominion University